Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump about other people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Needs Improvement

The article introduction says that Donald Trump became known for "using nicknames to criticize foreign leaders, media figures, and politicians." It goes on further by saying that "his use of derogatory nicknames has been characterized as bullying by various media outlets."

While these facts are not disputed, readers may reasonably assume that all nicknames included in the article are derrogatory in nature due to this description. However, the article also includes nicknames which were not used in either a critical or derogatory manner, such as "Big Luther" and "Justin from Canada". The article does not make any kind of distinction between friendly/casual monickers and critical/derogatory nicknames.

The article should be improved to address this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.171.150 (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

When Trump denies use of a nickname

An editor (using good faith judgement) deleted nicknames that Trump denied using. In my humble opinion, that's a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Trump denial does not equate faith. In my opinion, the proper way to deal with Trump's denial of a use of a nickname that WP:RS reported that he has used is to report both the use of the nickname, along with a comment that Trump denied using the nickname. This would allow readers to make their own judgement. The only exception would be if the WP:RS issued a retraction or a correction. I think that should be the only reason to remove a nickname that Trump reportedly used. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed the proper way to deal with it. RS trump Trump any day. He'll deny anything he's said or done, even when he's been recorded doing it on TV ten minutes ago, if he discovers a denial might serve him better with the minority who believe anything he says, fact checking be damned. At Wikipedia, we document what RS say and include denials. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not passing any judgement on whether or not Trump's denial is truthful, as my opinion is irrelevant. I'm just saying that that Trump's denial does not constitute a reason to delete a nickname reported in WP:RS. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It depends whether the RS is reporting the nickname as fact or is saying that Trump allegedly said it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions

I recently removed two additions from the list as they did not appear to be actual nicknames. However, they were restored, along with two new sources, neither of which actually specifies them to be nicknames. They just seem like insults to me rather than nicknames, but we should go by what sources say. Are there any sources which consider these to be nicknames? My unsuccessful search for such sources leads me to believe that nobody thinks of them that way.

• "goofball atheist Penn"

This seems like it could just be a succinct description of Penn as a "goofball" and an "atheist", and neither word is capitalized, as they would be if it were a nickname. If Trump did mean it as a nickname, then there should be a source out there that confirms this to be the case. However, I have found no sources which consider this to be a nickname. If sources do not label it as a nickname, how can we? Several sources mention "goofball atheist Penn" ([1], [2], [3]) but they do not specify it as being a nickname, and some ([4], [5], [6]) mention it as being among Trump's many insults.

• "Crooked H flunkie"

Specifically, Trump wrote that Maggie Haberman is "known as a Crooked H flunkie". The wording makes me think that this is not actually a nickname for her but rather just him saying what he thinks she is. The source in this case also does not specify this as a nickname, and I could not find any sources which do. As with "goofball atheist Penn", several sources ([7], [8], [9], [10]) reported on this "flunkie" comment but none labeled it as a nickname. Another source specifically states, The president described Haberman as a "third rate reporter" and a "Crooked H flunkie," which supports my belief that this was merely a description of Haberman and not an actual nickname.  AJFU  (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point on the distinction between "description" and "nickname". If Trump says "X is Y" then Y is not a nickname. However, if Trump uses the language "Y X", or just "Y" to refer to "X" then Y is a nickname (case in point, "Goofball Atheist Penn" and "Crooked H flunkie"). BarbadosKen (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding Haberman. Trump did mention her by name before calling her a flunkie. Here is the full sentence from that Tweet: The New York Times and a third rate reporter named Maggie Haberman, known as a Crooked H flunkie who I don't speak to and have nothing to do with, are going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will "flip.". Hence why I am confused, as this seems like an "X is Y" ("Haberman is a flunkie") situation rather than "just Y to refer to X" (because he didn't just use "flunkie" to refer to Haberman).  AJFU  (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The way I am reading the quote is "X is known as Y". Therefore, Y is a nickname for X. If the quote did not include the words "known as", then I'd agree that Y is not a nickname. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

lol why tf is this a wiki article

I mean, its very humorous but why tho?69.123.236.168 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article creation operates on the principle of notability - that is, an article must have plenty of lasting external coverage by media sources from differing perspectives. As these nicknames have been commented on by both media publications in favour of and against Trump, this topic is deemed notable enough to get an article. This has happened before: see List of nicknames used by George W. Bush. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A President using and creating that many nicknames is in itself a very unique and notable thing. The big picture is what should consider along with the detailed occurrences. If another president used a nickname once or twice, that would not constitute a pattern. But given the frequency and persistent use of nicknames of President Trump, I think it qualifies to remain as an article. 80.216.243.67 (talk) 15:31, June 11, 2019‎ (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Trump recently called Stephen Colbert "The guy on CBS", but I believe this could be classified as a legitimate pronoun, rather than a nickname. However, with Trump, the lines are often blurred. Here is a Newsweek reference to the incident. For one thing, Colbert responded by pretending that the nickname / pronoun was intended for James Corden before acknowledging that it was a reference to himself. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

After thinking about it, given that Trump called Jimmy Fallon by his name, and he used the words "The guy on CBS" to refer to Colbert, rather than referring to him as "a guy on CBS", I think it can be legitimately interpreted as a nickname for Colbert, rather than as a pronoun. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Big Luther predates Trump

Luther Strange has been known as "Big Luther" here in Alabama since his time in politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thbeane (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a footnote to explain this. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Flake's new nickname

Here is the tweet from Trump: "Martha McSally, running in the Arizona Primary for U.S. Senate, was endorsed by rejected Senator Jeff Flake". To me, that sounds like a nickname. This certainly sounds like a nickname for Jeff Flake. BarbadosKen (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a regular qualifier to me. Trump tends to capitalize his nicknames. Is this tweet the only source we have for this case? — JFG ^talk 19:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

To me this reads like a nickname. Had it been a qualifier, he would have written it as "endorsed by Senator Jeff Flake who has been rejected". By putting the word "rejected" in front of the name and making part of the name, I believe it becomes a nickname no different than the other nicknames on the list. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus below. Kraose (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

---

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump → List of insults and degrading nicknames used by Donald Trump – It seems that the purpose of this list is to put in one place all the insulting nicknames that Trump has used against his political opponents. The current name for the article does not allow listing cases in which Trump simply insults people. For example, Trump has referred to Stephen Colbert as a "lowlife". However, because the quote Trump used was “The guy on CBS, what a lowlife”, what gets captured in the list is "the guy on CBS" rather than the essence of what Trump said. On the flip side, the current article name encourages listing Trump as having used the nickname "Honest Abe" for Abraham Lincoln, which does not fit the majority of the list, as the nickname is not used in a derogatory fashion. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see the problem with a few nicknames differing from the rest. Although Trump is renowned from his negative nicknames, the more laudatory ones are notable enough - being the subject of their respective sources in quite a few cases. Also, "degrading" could violate NPOV - 'negative' would work just as well. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 06:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Adds unnecessary length to the title and would alter the subject of the article. While most of these entries aren't flattering, some are, and those would be left out.LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, a violation of WP:CONCISE. feminist (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POVTITLE — JFG ^talk 16:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per CONCISE and the fact the proposed title is a mouthful and a half!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you propose a shorter article title that would allow capturing the essence of what Trump called Stephen Colbert? BarbadosKen (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

How does something trivial meet the notability standards? Wikipedia's turning into a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.139.114 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To put it simply, it passes WP:GNG, which has existed in some form since at least 2007:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

For more information, see WP:Notability. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 01:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the greatest article I have ever seen.

Some day this will be in the history books. Whoever keeps this updated, you are a hero sir or madam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.225.166 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Another nick for Hillary?

If I don't remember wrongly, Trump once called Hillary "Obama-like". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.124.116 (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

[adjective] [full name]: are these really nicknames?

About 1/4 of these examples are just their actual full names with an adjective attached. In some cases, this would be a nickname, but in others, it would not; it depends on whether the adjective was intended to be part of the person's name or not. Should the list be trimmed? HotdogPi 20:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unless Trump used [Adjective] [verb] [name] then the [adjective] [name] becomes a nickname. GoLatvia (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Table or list for nicknames Trump gives himself?

With Columns 2 and 3 of the table about Trump's nicknames for himself in this version being completely superfluous and conveying no relevant information, it seems to me that it would be better to present those nicknames in a list fashion as in this version. The reason given for having a table form that consistency with other sections aids in readability seems dubious to me. To me, having a table with irrelevant information reduces the professionalism of the work. GoLatvia (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I would actually argue that the opposite is true: the incongruency that a list results in is more unprofessional. Wikipedia has no policies mandating professionalism anyway; so even if one accepts your point of view, there is no reason to remove the redundant information. In fact, it is in line with consensus policy regarding tables and legibility (for example, WP:WHENTABLE). - Axisixa T C 02:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump's low-effort nickname for Pelosi: "Nancy"

It is my opinion that "Nancy" should be in the list of nicknames for Nancy Pelosi. While "Nancy" is not a nickname for "Nancy" per se, the context in which Trump called her "Nancy" I believe qualifies it as a nickname, and indeed has been reported by others as a "low-effort" nickname: "'Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy, as I call her, doesn't want to hear the truth,' said Trump, in comments reported by CNN's Ryan Struyk."

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/pelosi-trump-state-of-the-union-nickname-fight-13556253.php
https://jimheath.tv/2019/01/social-media-roasts-trumps-new-nickname-of-speaker-pelosi-nancy/
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/01/25/nancy-pelosi-twitter-nickname-trump-jeanne-moos-ebof-pkg-vpx.cnn

What do others here think? Mbruno222 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As you wrote, "Nancy" is not a nickname for "Nancy" per se. Just because Trump tried to portray it as a nickname does not make it a nickname. Banana Republic (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not "Trump World". The article lists nicknames that Trump has denied using. On the same token, there is no need to list "nicknames" that are obviously not nicknames just because Trump tries to portray them as such. Banana Republic (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln

Does "Honest Abe" really belong in this article? It's a common, widespread, historic nickname that is far from being unique to it's usage by Trump, and certainly he can make no claim to coining it. Just seems out of place to me. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Same argument can be made for Jerry Brown and other cases in which Trump uses nicknames that were not his invention. By the current article name "List of nicknames used by Donald Trump", there is no need for Trump to have invented the name. There was an attempt 6 months ago to rename the article which would have made such entries not include-able, but that effort went down in flames. Banana Republic (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• This does not belong in the article. It is a very common widespread nickname for Abraham Lincoln. Trump neither came up with it or popularized it.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the nickname does not belong on the list, the way the article is currently named, it does. There is nothing in the article name to suggest that Trump had to have come up with it, or popularize the nickname. See below proposal for page move intended to address this issue. Banana Republic (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most editors prefer the current name, which is consistent with List of nicknames used by George W. Bush. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 06:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

---

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump → List of diminutive nicknames used by Donald Trump – A similar proposal was made last October, and rejected for reasons of WP:CONCISE and WP:NPOV. I believe this proposal addresses both concerns. The proposal adds only one new word to the article's title, and I found at least 3 references using the words "diminutive nicknames" (Reference 1, Reference 2, and Reference 3). It is pretty clear that Trump has a purpose of using the nicknames, so nicknames used for other reasons should not be included.
Several editors have tried to remove "honest Abe" from the list because the nickname is not original to Trump. While I don't think that's the reason to remove the nickname, I agree that the nickname does not really belong in the list because it's not designed to be insulting belittle like the majority of the nicknames on the list. However, the way the article is currently named does require that this nickname be listed for the sake of completeness.
The way the article is currently titled, if he calls his son, Donald Trump, Jr., "Don" that could be listed. It would also be legitimate to list "Chuck" for Charles Schumer, "Mike" for Michael Pence and Michael Pompeo, and "Steve" for Steven Mnuchin. I would think that most editors would agree that use of such common nicknames should not be on the list. Banana Republic (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that at least three of the nicknames are positive or neutral: Beautiful Ted, Big Luther, and Bush Original. AdA&D 15:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

All three would indeed be excluded if the word "diminutive" were added to the title. In the case of "Beautiful Ted", I would be in favor of including the nickname as a footnote because it was clearly intended to make up for the belittling of previous insulting nicknames when it was politically convenient for Trump to support Ted Cruz (as Trump preferred Cruz over Beto O'Rourke). Banana Republic (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm not so sure about that. Wikt:diminutive defines diminutive in the grammatical context as "Of or pertaining to, or creating a word form expressing smallness, youth, unimportance, or endearment." (emphasis added) I think Beautiful Ted, Big Luther, and Bush Original fit within that definition, as expressing endearment, and I personally see no reason to try to exclude those from the list (or even to exclude "Honest Abe" or "Gerry 'Moonbeam' Brown" – WP:NOTPAPER). I agree that obvious common shortenings should not be included (Don, Mike, and Steve), but I don't see how changing the title is necessary to reach an agreement about that. I also wonder about whether "word form" applies – these nicknames are often lengthy phrases involving adjectives and such labels. If you want to change the title, you might want to consider List of colorful nicknames used by Donald Trump, but to me it doesn't seem like a renaming is really necessary. Renaming would also harm consistency with List of nicknames used by George W. Bush. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines diminutive as "small; little; tiny", and that's basically the concept of "belittling". I think colorful is too vague of a concept to be a good descriptive title. Banana Republic (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It also has a secondary meaning in grammar as "Grammar. pertaining to or productive of a form denoting smallness, familiarity, affection, or triviality, as the suffix -let, in droplet from drop." (emphasis added to show non-pejorative uses). Also, "small; little; tiny" does not always mean "insulting". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think Beautiful Ted, Big Luther, and Bush Original should be excluded (unlike common shortenings Don, Mike, and Steve). Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, why do we even have an article for this? This article seems, put simply, immature, both because the nicknames he uses are (mostly) immature and because we're an online encyclopedia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is too similar to the 28 October 2018 proposal. Sure, most of these are insults, but some aren't. The evolution from "Lyin' Ted" to "Beautiful Ted" is notable and deserves inclusion.LM2000 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Beautiful Ted" could, and should, be included as a footnote in a list limited to just the demeaning (or belittling or "diminutive" - whatever adjective you want to use) nicknames. The footnote could say that years after calling him "Lying Ted", Trump changed to "Beautiful Ted" when stumping for Cruz in the latter's reelection campaign. Banana Republic (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the relevant gloss of wikt:diminuitive is "expressing smallness, youth, unimportance, or endearment". I don't think that describes most of the names listed in this article. It might apply to, say, "Mr. Kurd", "Little Katy", or "Dicky Durbin", but not e.g. "No Talent Samantha Bee", "Low-IQ Maxine Waters", or "Horseface". If you're looking to describe the names as insulting or belittling, I'd suggest "pejorative nicknames". (Though I'm not convinced that adding any kind of adjective to the title fixes any real problem.) Colin M (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there are indeed nicknames that should not be on the list, there are other ways of excluding them, for instance, simply omitting nicknames that have been notable before Trump's usage of them. As far as I am aware, List of nicknames used by George W. Bush fulfills this criterion (though probably unintentionally); I doubt Bush has never used a nickname coined by another person. It is likely that the only reason why common nicknames that Trump happened to use have been included is his prominent Twitter usage. - Axisixa T C 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If the thought is that entries like "Honest Abe" or "Mike" for Michael Pence are undesirable but technically seem like they should be included based on the title... one alternative option that would exclude these is List of nicknames coined by Donald Trump. Colin M (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I believe a Talk page consensus is sufficient (without a change of title) to exclude the "non-notable" nicknames. Personally, I would exclude "Mike" but include "Honest Abe" (which illustrates Mr. Trump's penchant for adjectives, even though it is not original), but I would also not mind leaving that one out as well if others think its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rosie O'Donnell

Trump has insulted Rosie O'Donnell with a long list of adjectives: fat, ugly, disgusting, "rude, crude, and not smart," etc.. I can't find a specific conjoined use, as a nickname, of "Fat Rosie" or "Ugly Rosie". Here is a link to a New York Times article NYT, Sept 28, 2016, "Donald Trump Keeps Insulting Rosie O’Donnell...". Does Rosie O'Donnell deserve at least some mention on the main page? AdderUser (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about, as its title suggests, nicknames by Donald Trump. There are plenty of other articles that touch upon his conduct, like Donald Trump on social media, and I find it very unlikely that none of them mention her. Therefore, no, she does not. - Axisixa T C 03:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Rex Tillerson

I don't believe that Trump describing Tillerson as "dumb as a rock" constitutes a nickname, unless there is some specific context in which the phrase that has been used by Trump that I've missed. Shimunogora (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

True. The reference provided quotes Trump as having tweeted "He was dumb as a rock". That's obviously not using "dumb as a rock" as a nickname. Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Democrats

@Banana Republic: "I disagree with you" is hardly a valid reason to revert. Do you have an explanation? wumbolo ^^^ 12:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The list shows 17 people, yet the nickname(s) use the number 13. The list also includes 13 members who do not have an asterisk. Unless it can be shown that those who do not have an asterisk are the ones that Trump included when he coined the nickname 13, we have to add the phrase to say that it is not know whether the the lack of asterisk was the criteria Trump used in coining the nickname. To not include that statement would be WP:SYNTH, which is a form of WP:OR. Banana Republic (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR doesn't work like that. Including something is original research, not excluding. And you are including original research. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Take another look at WP:SYNTH. We have one source that found 13 out of 17 people who have something in common (they are either registered Democrats or contributed to Democratic candidates). Then we have Trump who used the number 13. To suggest that Trump's group of 13 is the same as the 13 who have been identified by the source is the very definition of WP:SYNTH which states that Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

While it's OK to include the 13 that the source found to be registered Democrats or have contributed to Democratic candidates, it's important to caution the reader that this is not necessarily the same 13 that Trump had in his mind. Banana Republic (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

So I am combining material to create a nothing? wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing the sentence in question creates the illusion that the 13 individuals identified by the Washington Post are the same 13 individuals Trump was thinking when he coined the nickname. The Washington Post certainly did not make that connection, which is why it's important to not make the connection on Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Groups of people?

I believe there should be a new section that lists Trump's nicknames for specific groups of people (not to be confused with official organizations). These could include "AOC Plus 3"/"The Squad" (AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley), "Chuck & Nancy" (Chuch Schumer & Nancy Pelosi), and the "13/17 Angry Democrats" that are already listed under "other". One argument against adding a section like this is that many of the people in these groups have already been named elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, these "branded nicknames" are used in a similar manner as his nicknames for individuals. Thoughts? Sk5893 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If Trump used the nicknames "AOC Plus 3" and/or "The Squad" for the 4 Congresswomen, that is certainly something worth adding the article and starting a section for "Groups of people" in which it should be lumped with the 17 people who worked for Robert Mueller.

If the group nickname is different from the individual nickname, then it's a distinct nickname that should have its own entry.

"Chuck & Nancy" should not be added to the article because that is their real names (ignoring the common nickname of Chuck for Charles for which consensus is to exclude such nicknames).

Banana Republic (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Chuck and Nancy" may be an exception to the rule because he uses the term on multiple occasions to "brand" the duo. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/chuck-schumer-nancy-pelosi-trump-health-care.html https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/pelosi-schumer-trump-shutdown-1115917)

But then again, the context of the nickname does go against the criteria for inclusion in this article. Sk5893 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Trumpworld. Just because Trump thinks that "Chuck and Nancy" is a brand, does not make it a nickname notable for inclusion on a Wikipedia list of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Banana Republic (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown

Trump wasn't the first to use this nickname. Many Californians have been using the name for many years before Trump entered politics. In the wikipedia page for Jerry Brown, there is a footnote to an LA Times article (link no longer works) dated April 23, 1979 referencing him as "Moonbeam". Therefore, I wouldn't attribute it to Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris edits (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Chris edits, I agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The name of the article does not preclude the inclusion of a nickname that has been used prior to Trump. A couple of efforts have been made to change the nature of the list, but both went down in flames. See archived discussions one and two. Banana Republic (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Consistent capitalization

I'd like to propose the following changes:

• "47th Vice President of the United States" -> "47th vice president of the United States" (modified by an ordinal, see MOS:JOBTITLES "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.")
• "23rd Attorney General of Connecticut" -> "23rd attorney general of Connecticut" (modified by an ordinal, see MOS:JOBTITLES "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.")
• "31st Attorney General of California" -> "31st attorney general of California" (modified by an ordinal, see MOS:JOBTITLES "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.")
• "former Secretary of State of California" -> "former secretary of state of California" (modified by adjective "former", see MOS:JOBTITLES "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.")
• "43rd Vice President of the United States" -> "43rd vice president of the United States" (modified by an ordinal, see MOS:JOBTITLES "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.")
• "50th Attorney General of Arkansas" -> "50th attorney general of Arkansas" (modified by an ordinal, see MOS:JOBTITLES "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.")
• "former First Lady of the United States" -> "former first lady of the United States" (modified by adjective "former", see MOS:JOBTITLES "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.")
• "former United States Deputy Attorney General" -> "former United States deputy attorney general" (modified by adjective "former", see MOS:JOBTITLES "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.")
• "Former Solicitor General of Texas" -> "former solicitor general of Texas" (modified by adjective "former", see MOS:JOBTITLES "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.")

—Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems that MOS:JOBTITLES is inconsistent because it also lists "Richard Nixon was President of the United States". I cannot see how adding the number in front of the job title to say that he was the 37th President of the United States would change the capitalization of the job title.

I guess that's an issue to address at the talk page at MOS:JOBTITLES. Banana Republic (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mangled name vs. nickname

A lot of this stuff strays off topic - like listing of instances where Trump simply mangled someone's name. That's not a "nickname" that's just mangling someone's name. Volunteer Marek 06:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It all depends how it's covered in WP:RS. We can take it up on a case by case basis. Banana Republic (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, if RSs refer to any of these things as "nicknames" then we can include them, but I doubt it. And we're not going to do it on case-by-case basis because that'd be an inefficient waste of time seeing as how the very nature of the section is out of scope. And no, the section has NOT "been there for awhile", you added it about a month ago, so WP:STATUS doesn't apply, and anyway, that's a (wrong headed) essay, not a policy. I realize that technically your account was created in 2006 or whatever but I also see that you only reactivated it recently, in April 2019 of this year, so I'm not sure why you're quoting policy at me. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Banana Republic and Volunteer Marek: I strongly suggest that both of you start discussing this here and stop reverting each other. If you continue you may find yourselves unable to edit for a while. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous"

The whole section is out of scope - these aren't nicknames just random stuff he said. Lots of this crap is sourced to twitter or the like. No effort has been made to establish notability. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

When Trump uses words to refer to something in lieu of the actual thing that he is referencing, it becomes a nickname. Trump's Tweets are a WP:PRIMARY reference, and all all those primary references should be replaced by WP:SECONDARY references. WP:PRIMARY is not a reason for blanking the section. Banana Republic (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Only 3 of the 19 entries in the Misc section use Trump's tweets as a WP:PRIMARY reference. All others use valid WP:RS references. Banana Republic (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet you restored even the stuff sourced to twitter, which suggests that this isn't a disagreement over sources but scope. WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include and having a RS mention something is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion. And these sources need to explicitly call these phrases "nicknames" or something sufficiently similar or its out of scope. Please get consensus for inclusion. Volunteer Marek 15:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The nicknames for the mainstream media have been listed in the article way before I moved them to the Miscellaneous section in September 21-22. Therefore, WP:STATUS QUO applies to them. Since you are insisting on removing lots of other things with them, then it all gets lumped under WP:STATUS QUO, and you need a consensus for removing.

The criteria used for inclusion of the nicknames in the section that you are removing is the same criteria used for inclusion in the rest of the article. It seems that you want to challenge the existence of the article, so what you should do is take it to a WP:AfD rather than edit war over a specific section. Banana Republic (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me say this one more time: WP:STATUS is an ESSAY not a policy. It's just a person's views and opinions. I think it's a wrong headed opinion and there's no requirement we take it seriously (there's a lot of dumb essays on Wikipedia). It would be kind of ridiculous for an encyclopedia to insist that something must stay in an article just because it's been there for awhile.

And while your Sept 22 edit did indeed only move (some) of the info [11], the info itself was added shortly before that. In this version from Sept 21 - ONE freakin' day before you "only moved long standing text" (riiiggghhht) - most of the info's not in there. You added "Ukraine Witch Hunt" [12] on 20:41 Sept 21, about 24 hours before you "only moved long standing text". One freakin day. And you use that to pretend that this stuff has been in there for "much longer than a month". Who are you trying to kid? Why are you misrepresenting the history of the article in this discussion? It's trivial to check that you added the stuff on Sept 21, then moved it on Sept 22. So you pretending that this text dates back far longer than your "just moving stuff" edit of Sept 22 is disingenuous.

You added "Russia collusion delusion" on October October 25 [13] Your own pinchin' edit summary says so! "Long standing" and "more than a month" my butt.

You added "Greatest Witch Hunt in American History" on October 26 [14]. Your own pluckin' edit summary says so! "Long standing" and "more than a month" my butt.

Etc. None of this stuff is "long standing" and even if it was, so what. Even if it was in there since, I don't know, 2004 or something, if it doesn't belong, it doesn't belong.

And no, I don't object to the existence of this article at all nor do I want to challenge it. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't misrepresent what I'm saying. Don't try to strawman the discussion. I'm objecting to you including material in this article which is out of scope, and which you need to justify on WP:DUE and WP:SCOPE grounds, since the WP:ONUS for inclusion is on you.

It's also noteworthy that you've been edit warring on this article over this and related matter against multiple editors, like User:Muboshgu [15], User:Eyer [16], User:Suncrow and several others. So if you want to go to 3RR over this, please, be my guest. In the meantime, ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you define what "Out of scope" means? Are you saying that only people can have nicknames and he cannot use nicknames to label criticism of himself or the main stream media? Banana Republic (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, no. Dogs have nicknames. Organizations have nicknames. Cars have nicknames. But this is just "random shit Trump said". Not "nicknames". Anyway, burden and WP:ONUS is on you. Get consensus. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact, our lede summarizes the article/list. " commentary about media figures, politicians, and foreign leaders." That's not it. Volunteer Marek 04:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump can nickname any random shit that he wants. There is nothing to preclude including those nicknames in the list. The intro sentence can be expanded to include "and any other topic that Trump wishes to nickname". Nicknames need not be limited to people. Banana Republic (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And here is a specific link in WP:RS that calls "Fake News" a nickname. Banana Republic (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

yes, the intro sentence *could* be expanded to read “any other topic that Trump” talks about, but it hasn’t been expanded in such a way and it’s unlikely that it will be since that would be changing the scope of this article. The scope is NOT “random shit Trump says”. Nicknames may not be limited to people but they are NOT any ol’ thing Trump says.

Get consensus. Start an RfC. WP:ONUS is on you. In the meantime, quit edit warring. Volunteer Marek 01:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this and this just seems to be petty. It's like "you reverted me so I will find something to revert you". If you want to have better wording that's fine, but using examples like "Mike" and "Michael" in the lede is just clumsy, to say the least. Volunteer Marek 02:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

why no john barron for himself?

Can someone who knows how to add nicknames add john barron to "himself"?DonCucos (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

arrogant young woman

While most of Trump's nicknames are intended to be insulting, the fact that "arrogant young woman" was an insult was not a good reason to remove the entry from the list. I do agree, however, that "arrogant young woman" does not belong on the list because although Trump did use the words to refer to the woman, which would normally qualify as a nickname, in this particular case he did so not knowing the woman's name (the woman is not notable). Therefore, "young woman" is the verb and "arrogant" is an extra adjective added for emphasis, and not a nickname.
This borderline case does bring into question the naming of the article. There have been two proposals that are now in the talk page archive to rename the article, and both failed miserably. Banana Republic (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"young woman" is the verb "

Huh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:E1A3:B9B0:3538:9276 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Typos, mispronunciations, and Trumpisms

I don't think it's necessary to include typos, such as "Ex-FBI LAYER Lisa Page," which was originally from a tweet. It might be appropriate for a "Trump's typos" page, but it's not a genuine nickname. I'm sure if Trump were to actually use this nickname, he'd correctly say "lawyer". I also think including "My African American" in reference to Gregory Cheadle is misleading, as Trump appears to have lost his train of thought in that particular video clip. I imagine, had he finished his sentence, he'd have said something like "My African American friend" or "supporter" or "colleague". Just my two cents. Dreamanderson (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we really have nicknames not invented by Trump on this list?

I don't see why some of these nicknames are on here, for example "Moonbeam" for Gov. Brown and "Honest Abe" for Lincoln. Those (and a few others on the list) are by no means created by Trump, they're just nicknames of those people, which Trump happened to later use. They seem to go against the purpose of the list. I propose that the entries of nicknames commonly used before Trump's usage be removed from the list: "Moonbeam" for Jerry Brown, "Boot-Edge-Edge" for Pete Buttigieg, "Mad Dog" for James Mattis, "Big Luther" for Luther Strange, "The Squad" for Ocasio-Cortex et al., "Democrat Party" for Democratic Party, and "Old Grey Lady" for The New York Times. Hog Farm (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames that are not original to Trump are denoted by footnotes. This is explained in the lede of the article. The title, after all, is "List of nicknames used by Donald Trump", not "List of nicknames 'coined' by Donald Trump". Sk5893 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sk5893, they should be removed and the page can be renamed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Excessive removals of nicknames cited to Tweet

I've noticed a large amount of entries removed with the reason being that they were cited to a tweet. The tweets are the primary source. I personally find them applicable but wanted to get a consensus before adding them back. Sk5893 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@SK5893: The reason for this removal was due to a recent Articles for Deletion discussion for this page and it was decided that while there wasn't any consensus to delete the page, there was wide consensus to significantly trim it down. In my opinion, a lot of these items should be removed because they're not really "nicknames" but just insults Trump used one time that don't have significant coverage. In keeping with the spirit of WP:BLP I don't believe we should have a list of insulting epithets if the epithets don't have enduring coverage in reliable sources. Having a list of every time Trump called someone a "washed up psycho" or "crazy" is more like tabloid news than encyclopedic coverage. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating a definitive criteria for adding nicknames to this list

The last AfD for this page determined that this list is too long and needs significant trimming. I personally believe a lot of the "nicknames" here are just insults and not actually nicknames. I'm hoping we could potentially get a consensus on some criteria for what's a "nickname" and what's not. My proposed criteria for adding names to this list would be:

• Described as a "nickname" by at least one independent reliable secondary source.
• Described as being used by Trump by at least one independent reliable secondary source.

Any thoughts? These seem kind of incomplete so I'm looking for feedback. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 10:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start removing "nicknames" that have only been used once by Donald Trump. A nickname is defined as a substitute for an actual name by Wiktionary, and a name is typically used more than once. A fair bit of these "nicknames" are just descriptors or one-off adjective-proper noun pairs. The purpose of this articles is to document actual nicknames used by Donald Trump, like "Little Marco" or "Crazy Hillary". It's not to document every single time news organizations reported on him referring to a person with an adjective. I believe this is a very low bar to clear for legitimate nicknames. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 20:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So far nobody has been objecting to my removals, so I'm going to state the criteria I've been using so far as well as their rationales. So far I have what I believe to be some criteria:

• Described as a nickname by at least one independent reliable secondary source.
  • This is relatively obvious in my opinion. We need to differentiate insults from actual nicknames which Trump uses. We could tweak this criteria if for example only one news source refers to something as a "Trump nickname" but the vast majority of other sources don't call it a nickname.
• Described as being used by Trump by at least one independent reliable secondary source.
  • Also obvious. If a nickname hasn't been used by Trump it shouldn't be on this list.
• Trump should have used the nickname on at least two separate occasions.
  • This is in keeping with the principles of WP:BLP. The vast majority of Trump's nicknames are insulting in some way. We're not a tabloid and I believe we should err on the side of caution with respect to people that Trump nicknames. We're not a news organization and we don't have to cover every single Trump nickname. Let's focus on the ones with lasting notability. (I consider an "occasion" in this context to be a flurry of Trump tweets or one of his speeches/rallies/etc.)
• There should be lasting coverage of the nickname.
  • This is a rather subjective criteria that's open to debate. But what I mean by this is that we should exclude nicknames that only have coverage in a single brief period of time after Trump said/tweeted/etc them. For example, if Trump calls someone "Crazy John Doe" in both a tweet and a speech on March 5th, we should only include the nickname if there's coverage beyond the deluge of news articles in the period after March 5th commenting on Trump referring to a person as "Crazy John Doe". But if Trump was to then use that nickname on March 10th spurring another round of news article, we could include that nickname on the list.

I also have a few rules of thumb I'm using when removing nicknames. For example, if Trump refers to someone using an article, such as "the dumbass John Doe" or "John Doe, he's such an idiot" I assume it's not intended as a nickname. Articles are only rarely used with proper nouns (incl nicknames) in the English language and indefinite articles are never used with proper nouns. However this is only a rule of thumb and there are some exceptions, an obvious example being "The Donald", although in that case the article is a part of the proper noun. Additionally I'm removing every nickname of a living person if it's only cited to a tweet, the citation link doesn't work, or when the citation doesn't even mention the nickname. This second rule of thumb is mostly based on WP:BLP which prohibits unsourced contentious information about living persons as well as WP:BLPPRIMARY, not necessarily on the above criteria I've mentioned.

Anyways I'm interested in hearing if anyone has any thoughts or opinions on these criteria. The previous AfD I started closed with a consensus to heavily trim, so I'm working on implementing that. Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 07:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Chess I support your criteria. There's a difference between "nicknames" and "insults," and we don't want this article to become an exhaustive list of insults that Trump has ever used. Some1 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Trump should have used the nickname on at least two separate occasions" Strongly agree with this. This list is chock full of one-off insults that aren't really nicknames; Trump retweeting someone calling Hillary Clinton a skank is the latest addition. – Anne drew 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 edits

• I removed the "Himself" section and am preserving the contents here by providing this link; my rationale was: "ppl don't generally assign nicknames to themselves". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "these are insults, not nicknames". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Another diff: [17]; the rationale was: "rm material cited exclusively to Twitter and / or insults, which are not nicknames; also: "Chuck Schumer" is the person's name -- unclear why it's listed as a nickname". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Another: [18], with the rationale: "Rm entries cited exclusively to Twitter". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP

A occasional tweet does not establish a nickname; in any case, BLPs require better sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if User:BarneyGumbo87 and User:NumberGuy6 would join the discussion here instead of continuing to re-add nicknames cited only to a tweet. At this point we're trending into edit war territory with the continuous re-addition and deletion of nicknames. I've already made by position on this clear with my comments above but I'd appreciate it if we could solicit more input to build an actual consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixing ping to Numberguy6. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Sleepy Joe" gone?

What happened to the nickname "Sleepy Joe" for Joe Biden? I found this page through this redirection link, but the nickname isn't here anymore. I looked up the history a bit but I couldn't find an edit that removed it recently. Comniemeer (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I found the issue stemming from this edit: this edit by the user 2A00:23C8:2D82:9C01:349D:F934:9566:49ED. I have reverted the nicknames back to what they were in the supporting references. Jamgoodman (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Al Frankenstien" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Al Frankenstien. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Al Frankenstien until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Fake News New York Times" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fake News New York Times. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Fake News New York Times until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Boris J" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Boris J. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Boris J until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dopey Sugar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dopey Sugar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Dopey Sugar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Beijing Biden?

I came across Beijing Biden today in the new pages queue. Based on an internet search, while it's a nickname that's in heavy rotation from pro-Trump PACs and individuals, I wasn't able to quickly identify any instances of Trump himself using it. I'm wondering whether it should be pointed here or whether it's best left pointing at Joe Biden as a non-neutral nickname, despite probably not being due for actual inclusion in that article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Lyin' Obama"

Used, for instance, on a campaign-related poll on Trump's site: https://imgur.com/a/lXS3Ta0 Cmhawke (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is his role in Home Alone 2 that important?

Is it really important that Donald Trump starred in Home Alone 2 that it’s in the first sentence? I think it would probably be best just to say he is the 45th president of the USA and ignore some random cameo. Icedmorning (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Someone changed it from mentioning his role as United States President; I've reverted their edits. - Axisixa T C 00:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes

I think we should cut these down, some read like resumes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

Enemy of the people

Should instances where Trump called a media organization or an individual an "enemy of the people" be added to this list? See Enemy of the people#Donald Trump. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 10:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably a see also entry would be acceptable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

Why does this page exist?

Is a list of insults worth an encyclopedia page? Wolfita (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, why doesn't it? There is also one for George Bush and Stephen Colbert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don’t know why this exists either, but it’s hilarious lmao. “Pakistani mystery man” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.100.192.44 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it is sourced, and manages to make me laugh. So why not? Enjoyer of World^💬 06:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a number that are insults, but not nicknames. I have a feeling I've only scratched the surface. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC).

Purpose of this page

I don't see the point of this page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, recordings politician quote is not purpose of an encyclopedia. Some of it might be added into A section of Donald Trump's page. There is already a lot of books and articles who speaks about the behaviour of Donald trump no need to dedicate a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA48:6D9F:E3E0:2049:BE08:E4E4:DC4E (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion twice (first time, second time), so evidently some people agree with you. Neither time a majority of people agreed that it be deleted though, so it still exists. Rather than reiterating the various editors' arguments here, I'd suggest you check those pages out. - Axisixa T C 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A conversation between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky where an intelligence analyst who listened in on the conversation blew the whistle and filed a complaint that Trump did something illegal

Is this really encyclopedic? 98.114.153.80 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not well-worded though. --Luminoxius (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Dishonest press" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dishonest press. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6#Dishonest press until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion criteria

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

---

Do you support or oppose the following inclusion criteria for this list?

All nicknames added to this list should meet the following criteria

• Described as a nickname by at least one secondary, independent, reliable source.
• Described as being used by Trump by at least one secondary, independent, reliable source.
• Trump should have used the nickname on at least two separate occasions.
• There should be lasting coverage of the nickname.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• Support. Over a year ago I nominated this article for deletion and there was significant consensus to trim this list down. [19] In May of 2020 I tried to solicit feedback on some new inclusion criteria that I believed would help trim this list down and received positive feedback. [20] The thread was open for several months until November when it was archived. [21] Since I didn't get a good consensus on that inclusion criteria and people continue to add nicknames that don't meet these criteria I'm starting this RfC to formalize consensus on this. I believe these are reasonable albeit harsh criteria. I detailed why I chose them when I originally proposed them [22] but the tl;dr of it is that the first two are necessary to actually keep this article on-topic and the last two are necessary to prevent this list from being filled with "nicknames" that are really just one-off insults. This list was not meant to be a compilation of every single insult ever used by Trump. It is not meant to be a list of every single dubious "nickname" that Trump has ever used; we are not a tabloid that includes everything Trump has ever been documented to say. It is meant to include the actual famous nicknames Trump has used like "Crooked Hillary" or "Lying Ted", not the fact he misspelled Mark Esper's name as "Mark Esperanto" in a tweet once [23] or that time Trump called someone a "watermelon head" [24] or when he jokingly suggested that the Lincoln Project could be called the "Loser's Project" [25] to a reporter one time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Chess. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 16:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can well understand the need for a set of ctriteria. My reservations would be with criteria 1 (Described as a nickname by at least one secondary, independent, reliable source) . What happens when a RS says that Trump habitually/often refers to person Y as "Wily Y'. Habitually referring to someone by some means other than their given name is textbook 'nickname', but the actual term 'nickname' has not been employed. conversely, looking at the article, some instances appear to be simply transient adjectival descriptions (which usually range from "less than endearing" to "full-out insulting" - but that's the measure of the man!). Sanctimonious Comey for example doesn't appear to rise to the level of a nickname - and never could really, it isn't standing in for his name. "Saint James", if used obviously could. I don't see how you can satisfactorily define a nickname. On the other hand, the threshold for number of uses seems very low. Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: That's the problem. Trump constantly refers to people with adjective + noun combos, some of which are nicknames and some of which are insults. Other times he'll repeatedly use a certain phrase like "enemy of the people" to refer to the press. It's impossible for us to create a standard of "what is a nickname" without doing original research in some way or relying on reliable sources to do it for us. Evaluating names as to whether or not they meet nickname criteria would also be original research which is why I believe citing to an RS is the best solution. We'll probably miss some edge cases that way but I think we should err on the side of having less nicknames and not more nicknames, given that the majority of them are negative descriptions of living people. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the arguments Chess made above. Some1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the exact proposed criteria, even though both independent coverage (criteria 1&2) and lasting impact (criteria 3&4) are reasonable to ask. As Pincrete pointed out, looking for the keyword "nickname" is unnecessarily robotic and limiting, unless there is a separate set of criteria for what can be considered as "described as a nickname". As for the criterion of how many times a nickname should be used, I assume a nickname can, though not commonly, be notable even if used once only. There are not all that many new nicknames added to the page these days, and I think we can filter them in and also clean up the existing ones case by case. --Luminoxius (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's additions like this one [26] that justify why we need these criteria. Trump said the word "Russia" three times in a row during an interview (a primary source). The source is a transcript of an interview; the source doesn't describe "Russia, Russia, Russia" as a nickname. The interview doesn't make it clear "Russia, Russia, Russia" is a nickname. The interview barely makes it clear what the nickname is about. How do we know this actually was a nickname for Russia and not just a case of epizeuxis? And even if it was, we shouldn't be picking interviews and primary sources to find every single thing Trump has ever said like was done here [27] [28] with Trump calling the Lincoln Project the "Loser's Project" during a speech cited to that very speech. When a secondary source actually covered Trump's usage of the word "loser" w/r/t the lincoln project, [29] the source only remarked that the Trump called the Lincoln Project "losers", no mention of a nickname.

  Likewise for this [30] addition. Trump described the impeachment process as "a lynching". Sources haven't described this as a nickname but it was added anyways, along with other phrases such as "totally compromised kangaroo court", "greatest Witch Hunt in American History", and "impeachment lite". None of these were described as nicknames by the sources. These are exactly the kind of additions that these criteria are meant to prevent and having to go case by case discussing based on our WP:Original research whether or not these are nicknames would not be a good use of time when we have reliable sources to evaluate whether or not certain phrases are nicknames. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @Chess: Before I have time to break down on each entry, would you be so kind to comment on if "Speaking to reporters Tuesday morning, Trump defended his record and said the organization should be rebranded the "Losers Project."" in this source qualifies, in your opinion, an example of a nickname, i.e. "an informal, often humorous, name for a person that is connected with their real name, their personality or appearance, or with something they have done"? If not, why? Thanks in advance. --Luminoxius (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Luminoxius: My opinion on whether or not it is a nickname is irrelevant. WP:SYNTHESIS is clear; we're not empowered to make the determination on whether or not Trump was using the "Losers Project" as a nickname or whether or not he was saying they should be rebranded to it as an insult or if he used those words for some other reason. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  I should add that I've tried to do this on this list in the past, by examining capitalization, use of the definite or indefinite article, looking to see if matches with the pattern adjective + name that Trump loves to use, and looking at the context where the nickname was used to see if it was an insult or a nickname. But now I realize that's basically just doing original research since I was synthesizing a bunch of different knowledge sources together to make determinations about nicknames. This list should have always had a criteria that names be described as nicknames to be added to it. This is basic. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Chess: I was not asking for your opinion on whether something is a nickname. I was asking for a clearer definition of your proposed criteria: if a source describes "xxx should be rebranded yyy", does it constitutes a description of "yyy" as a nickname, even though the word "nickname" is not used. As multiple editors have noted, it could be overly limiting if we only look for the exact word "nickname" as a criteria. I think some common sense can be applied here without going into OR territory. --Luminoxius (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  CNN did not say "xxx should be rebranded yyy". CNN paraphrased Donald Trump and the article makes that clear. This is not evidence of a nickname; that statement could very well have just been an insult. Not every referring expression is a name for the referent of that expression. There's are three options we can take here. One, we can spend our time debating linguistics trying to create some kind of criteria that lets us unambiguously differentiate names (and therefore nicknames) from other referring expressions. From reading our article on referring expression generation this appears like it might be rather difficult; not to mention almost certainly involve original research. The second option is we don't try to define nicknames and adopt a criteria based on having someone else (in this case reliable sources) do it for us. This is the option that I believe would help us fulfill the purpose of the article while aligning with our policies. The third option is we take a Wikia approach [31] [32] by including every single referring expression Trump has ever said.

  The proposal I've posted above implements the second option, which is that a secondary, independent, reliable source must describe the referring expression as a "nickname" for it to be a nickname. I am sorry if I wasn't clear but that would mean that the CNN source fails criteria 1. Also, we can't apply WP:COMMONSENSE here since we do not share a common sense of what constitutes a nickname (at least judging by the edit history of this article). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support - absolutely this is needed, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you strengthened point 3 to more than two separate occasions, but on the other hand, my feelings won't be hurt if it's at least two either. I'd also politely point out that the tables are not accessibility friendly, the specific problem is the / used to separate the nicknames, I'd suggest using , (comma) ; (semicolon) or : (colon) as separators, as they are more accessibility friendly to our visually impaired readers and editors who use screen readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This article is inundated with stuff that either isn't nicknames, or is a nickname but is kind of pointless. At one point, even "Honest Abe" was included in there, which I do not see the encyclopedic value of at all. Adding specific criteria seems like a good way to solve the problem. - Novov T C 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that some criteria are needed and like Isaidnoway, I think 2 recorded uses is a very low threhold, but by defining thus it at least means 'more than once' and will allow in terms used an numerically unspecific 'few times'. Very close synonyms of the term 'nickname' might be allowed, but at present there are too many "one-off" combinations and synth-ed pseudo-nicknames arrived at from longer statements ("ought to be called 'Losers' Project' " does not mean "'Losers' Project' has ever (even once) actually ever been used as a name", any more than "this steak ought to be called leather", means that my nickname for steak is "leather", especially if I only say this once). Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - All the criteria seem reasonable and having will hopefully prevent this page from running away length-wise. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've often thought that Trump will say something before really thinking about it. For example, when he has referred to Nancy Pelosi as "Crazy", "MS-13 Lover", "Nervous" or "Nancy Antoinette", these were probably spur-of-the-moment one-off things with no clear intention of using them regularly in the future - as evidenced by there being several of them. So they're not really nicknames. As for "Nancy" in the same list - the CNN source has 'Nancy, as I call her' in its title - that's not a nickname, it's her given name, and the worst that can be said about it is that Trump was possibly being overfamiliar. It's not unusual for a politician to be referred to using their given name - the UK Prime Minister is often referred to simply as "Boris" by his friends and enemies alike, both in politics and in the press. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support It's necessary to include that information. Sea Ane (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, The suggested criteria will somehow help in excluding names that shouldn't be in the list to be begin with and we'll have a measure of control on what's being added. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Removing nicknames from the list

Given the consensus at the above RfC to adopt the nickname guidelines and a lack of objections to the closure of the RfC, I've begun removing nicknames from the list. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Sleepy Eyes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sleepy Eyes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Sleepy Eyes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Tim Apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tim Apple and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Tim Apple until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 23:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Meatball Ron

A couple of editors have added this one, so I thought I'd get some input from others. In my opinion, 'Meatball Ron' (sources: [33], [34] & [35] does not meet the 2021 RFC guidelines on inclusion. Specifically, don't think that either Trump should have used the nickname on at least two separate occasions or There should be lasting coverage of the nickname are met. The sources report Trump's claims that he will not use the nickname so there is no evidence of multiple uses. All the sources come from February this year, so there is no lasting coverage. What do others think? WJ94 (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump has used the nickname on at least two separate occasions. 1) As reported by Bender and Haberman in casual conversations (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/19/donald-trump-ron-desantis-meatball-ron-colbert) and 2) in his Truth Social post where he said, “His loyalty skills are really weak. It would be totally inappropriate to use the word ‘meatball’ as a moniker for Ron!”, and “I will never call Ron DeSanctimonious ‘Meatball’ Ron, as the Fake News is insisting I will." Such denials constitute usage. As for lasting coverage just this month, the Daily Show had a vid on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzO5ebFjzGE), Salon used in in a headline (https://www.salon.com/2023/05/25/meatball-in-the-machine-ron-desantis-learns-a-tough-lesson-about-depending-on-elon-musks-twitter/) and TPM's Josh Marshall uses it routinely (eg https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1661754858947375106?s=20). Bottom line, the phrase was coined by Trump and repeated by others: it's DeSantis' highest profile nickname. Stephen Colbert: Trump was "never gonna do better than the crystallized genius that is ‘Meatball Ron’”." (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/19/donald-trump-ron-desantis-meatball-ron-colbert). Measure for Measure (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Measure for Measure, that seems sufficient to pass the RFC requirements to my mind. WJ94 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, my previous edit can be reverted. However, I do think a (denied) note would be appropriate in this case, as Trump has refused to use this publicly beyond the denial. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Tim Apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tim Apple has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 § Tim Apple until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Including nicknames denied by Trump?

The article title states nicknames “used by Donald Trump”. Listening ones which he denies using would logically imply he’s lying, which is not for Wikipedia to do. Thoughts? Asperthrow (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can imply he's lying if reliable sources say so. See false or misleading statements by Donald Trump. We could try using "disputed" instead of denied though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's lots of Wikipedia content that conveys RS reporting that he has misrepresented various facts: Factchecked statements determined to be false, conspiracy theories that were debunked, etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Cy Young

Could someone with NYT access check the Cy Young nickname added with this edit meets the 2021 RfC guidelines? I removed the Sarah Huckabee Sanders entry since the source provided didn't refer to it as nickname, but I can't access the source for Young. WJ94 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@WJ94: The only part of the article that mentions Cobb says: On more minor details, Mr. Wolff’s book has the same hit-or-miss quality. Mr. Trump did refer to one of his lawyers, Ty Cobb, as Cy Young — either deliberately or accidentally using the name of another baseball great for his lawyer’s namesake. Maybe the book that is being reviewed would be a better source, but even then it's rather weak. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: Thanks for looking into that for me. I'd be inclined to remove the entry then, unless a better source is forthcoming. WJ94 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Phoney Fani and newly-minted nicknames

How are we handling brand-new nicknames, for example Phoney Fani? It does not quite meet all of the RfC criteria, but since Trump just rolled it out, should we wait a little and see if it sticks? Zaathras (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this on Wikipedia?

Topic. No more elaboration needed... 58.172.156.13 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

TED CRUZ

Where is "Texas Ted". Trump stopped calling him Lyin' Ted when Cruz endorsed him for the 2016 bid and switched it to Texas Ted. I'd update it but I don't know how. 184.146.116.118 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)