Talk:Kennedy Center

Thread retitled from Lack of any mention of "Trump Kennedy Center" in lead or infobox is both absurd and violates NPOV. WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised it still has not been renamed yet or even mentioned in the intro, it's been well over a month and it has been called the Trump-Kennedy Center fairly consistently. Rolesafter1 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rolesafter1: Multiple reliable sources do not refer to it as such, maybe read the rest of this thread if you want to understand how consensus has been reached here. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Objective3000 The official name of the center has been changed and the fact that Wikipedia refuses to reflect that is obvious political bias which is silly and shameful. ~2026-82830-1 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Currently, the lead paragraph and the infobox of the article make no mention whatsoever of the putative renaming, even though the new name is prominently plastered on both the building and its official website.

To be clear, I'm not arguing Trump Kennedy Center is the WP:COMMONNAME, much less than we should be moving the article. I also understand there is a lot of debate about the legality of the move etc, but it's not Wikipedia's job to decide that. What is clear is that per WP:OTHERNAMES, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. At this point the alternative name "Trump Kennedy Center" certainly is "significant", and the intentional omission of this violates WP:NPOV.

The easiest way to fix this would be move the lead's last sentence up to the end of the first paragraph: In December 2025, the center's website published a new logo with the words "The Trump Kennedy Center", and on the day after, Trump's name was added to the building's main sign. This statement is factual, well sourced, and gives the alternative name WP:DUE weight (but no more). Asamboi (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I could be convinced either way on this I think it's fine as it is. I will point out that WP:OTHERNAMES says (as you quote) usually in the first sentence or paragraph, not always. Having a separate paragraph explaining the name "Trump Kennedy Center" allows for a more careful explanation of its status. I like the sentence you suggest, and I see it as perfectly neutral; however, I don't think it fits at the end of the first paragraph, which currently explains the (frankly, much more relevant) history and cultural significance of the centre. The article is of a decent length, and the longest paragraph in the (fairly short) lead is all about the alternative name, so I'm not sure omitting the name from the first paragraph is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Pink Bee (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

So why is the alternative name not in the infobox? Asamboi (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it could probably go in there. I would favour adding a footnote with a link to the relevant section of the article explaining the controversial nature of that name, though. Pink Bee (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion in the infobox would be inappropriate at this time, as that would be similar to calling it the "Trump Kennedy Center" in wikivoice. It's just not supported by how reliable sources are reporting on this. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer: I mean it could be listed as an alternative name of some sort (assuming the infobox we're using has a suitable field – I'm sure it does, but I haven't checked). In my opinion, nowhere in the article should it be used without reference to the fact that it is contested (hence the need for a footnote if it does go in the infobox), and we should not use it in place of the more common names. Pink Bee (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Then again, if we don't put it in the infobox, there will be no need for as to have a footnote explaining why we are including a name described as being contrary to law. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, and I did not say the name should go in the infobox. But a name described as being contrary to law is still a name, however unofficial, and my point is that it therefore could be given as an alternative-with-an-asterisk.

If this discussion is anything to go by, it is not an alternative many of us would use. Nor, I imagine, is it an alternative that will be around for particularly long. However, it is written on the side of the building, regardless of whether it should be; it is written on the website, even though this does not make it official; and it is used by certain groups of people. Moreover, the debate about it is currently very relevant. This is why I would not be opposed to including it in the infobox along with the footnote, etc.

As I said before, though, I would also not be opposed to keeping the article as it is. Pink Bee (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree until reliable sources actually start calling it that, and Gulf of Mexico is sufficent precedent imo. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a poor comparison. A body of water between numerous nations does not and cannot have a single official name, while a government body certainly does.

Also, the new name is consistently used in right-wing media (Fox) and inconsistently but increasingly in mainstream media as well (Independent UK, PBS News). Asamboi (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The official name of the building is designated by law as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

→ Is–ought problem Asamboi (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not an is-ought problem. No one is saying that it ought to be named by law, only that the law says the "building [is] to be designated as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts." It cannot have some other designation except by law (i.e., by Congress). There is already a lawsuit about this, Beatty v. Trump, D.D.C., 1:25-cv-04480. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

See, that's how you think things ought to be, but nevertheless the center now does have a different name plastered onto it. And I'm pointing out the absurdity of this article asserting that it ain't so. Asamboi (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop telling editors how they think. She is clearly telling you what the law is, not what she thinks it ought to be. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

O3000 is correct that I said nothing about what I think the law ought to be. Seems to me that you're describing an ought–is situation, as it were: that because Trump's name ought not to be on the building's facade (by law), it isn't on the building's facade (which is clearly false). Had you described it that way, I wouldn't have disagreed; obviously people sometimes do things they ought not to do, even things that are contrary to law. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asamboi: Also, the new name is consistently used in right-wing media (Fox) and ... Just a reminder, but Fox is not a reliable source. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources provided use Trump-Kennedy Center in a consistent way. Both articles use Kennedy Center more than Trump-Kennedy Center so I don't think that they're good examples. AG202 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not arguing that Trump-Kennedy should take precedence over the other names, I'm just saying it is used by a wide variety of sources and should thus be mentioned here as an alternative name.

It's also remarkable how WP:RSP includes precisely zero US right-wing publications, conveniently excluding their viewpoint entirely from disputes like this, but that's a rant for another day. Remember, we're not relying on Fox for the veracity of any facts here, just measuring usage. Asamboi (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Two sources using the term in close reference to the "rename" (and not exclusively in the article) is not usage "by a wide variety of sources". Ex: the PBS link uses "Trump-Kennedy Center" once, vs "Kennedy Center" at least 9 times, including in the title. That is not clear enough usage of the term, and elevating it to the lede or infobox would be WP:UNDUE, since it'd be based on a very small minority of usage. You'd need to show near-exclusive usage in articles outside of reporting about the name-change (similar to WP:NAMECHANGES). AG202 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Would you care to show me some sources with near-exclusive usage of the alternative name "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts"? Asamboi (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the official name, not an alternative name. No one says let's go to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. They use the common name. Like people say I'm visiting Bangkok, not it's official name: "Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit." O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asamboi: Remember, we're not relying on Fox for the veracity of any facts here, just measuring usage. The dilemma is that "usage" by an unreliable source is irrelevant to the discussion here. That's not an WP:RSP problem, that's an issue that has to do with the editorial unreliability of specific sources that lack journalistic integrity, right-wing or otherwise. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that usually means usually. In this case, the positioning of the rename was the result of consensus. Mikewem (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am questioning that consensus, since it does not seem to be grounded on policy. Asamboi (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It's based on what reliable sources have said. Here are just a few quick examples that I could come up with, in terms of the news media discussing their own editorial and naming policies:

• WaPo: "On CBS, it was still the Kennedy Center Honors - The network kept the Kennedy Center’s original name in its broadcast, and CBS News instructed staff to do the same, an email shows", CBS News’s standards department last week instructed staffers to maintain the original Kennedy Center name — not the updated Trump-branded one ... “But it would take Congressional approval to officially change the name ... Therefore, CBS News will continue to use the ‘Kennedy Center,’ ” Renaud continued. “If the president or other administration officials use the new name in a soundbite, that is their prerogative.”
• CNN: "Early Start with Rahel Solomon", Here's what Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, said in a statement. "At The Atlantic, the Department of Defense is the Department of Defense, the Kennedy Center is the Kennedy Center, and the Gulf of Mexico is the Gulf of Mexico."
• WaPo: "Trump renames the Kennedy Center, but will everyone else follow?", Like the Atlantic, The Washington Post said no change is imminent. “We will continue to use the Kennedy Center pending further clarity from ongoing legal and policy developments, and we will adjust our terminology as appropriate,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement. The Post continues to use Defense Department, Institute of Peace, and Gulf of Mexico.

@Asamboi: I'm sure there are other examples. It might help to review the multiple previous discussions that already took place about this. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussions were about asserting that Trump-Kennedy is the WP:COMMONNAME and the page itself should be moved. I'm not claiming it is, I'm just saying we need to include the alternative name on the infobox and/or lead paragraph. Asamboi (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The consensus to not include in the infobox was established in a conversation that you started at Talk:Kennedy Center/Archive 2#Nickname in infobox. Did you forget that you started this topic previously? Starting the same topic again so soon after the decision strikes me as not great. Mikewem (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

After the previous discussion, the page infobox was changed to include a picture of the new logo, which struck me as a reasonable compromise. But that's been reverted out too, so we're back at square one. Asamboi (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m the one who added the logo as a reasonable compromise. It’s very much still live and present at Kennedy Center#Board renaming vote and responses. Are you prepared to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this? Mikewem (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Which is nice for those people who scroll down that far, but I'm specifically concerned that the lead and infobox are currently WP:NPOV.

I also strongly resent your implication that I am editing disruptively, since I have not even touched the article content during this discussion. Asamboi (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I am prepared to close this thread as WP:BLUDGEONING (barring any new input from others with policy or RS-based support which may challenge the established consensus) Mikewem (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

If people reply to my comments, and I respond, that does not constitute bludgeoning.

I also systematically reject your claim that there is an existing consensus on this specific matter, since AFAICT there was only one previous abortive discussion about alternative names in the infobox and it did not come to a clear conclusion.

All that said, I am tempted to agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere, and I'll likely propose a formal RFC next to generate that consensus. Asamboi (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asamboi: I'll likely propose a formal RFC next to generate that consensus. Then I hope you will take the time to provide an extensive list of examples that clearly demonstrates the name most commonly used by reliable sources when they are reporting on the Kennedy Center. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

There's obviously a consensus against adding it. Creating an RFC would arguably be forum shopping and border on disruptive editing. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asamboi: I'm specifically concerned that the lead and infobox are currently WP:NPOV. I hear what you are saying, but I think the current status of the page is fine as it avoids WP:FALSEBALANCE. If and when the legal name of the Kennedy Center is changed by an act of Congress or through a relevant Supreme Court decision somehow, then I think we can reopen this discussion at that time. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain the policy-based rationale for why the name on the building and the website do not constitute a significant alternative name, but a legal decision would? Asamboi (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

A legal decision would likely lead to editorial naming policy updates at a majority of reliable sources, at which point we would be compelled to follow and respect their change in reporting. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

There is also this recent article, from the Associated Press: "Trump may have his name on the building but it’s still the Kennedy Center to Congress", President Donald Trump may have his name on the building, but it’s still the Kennedy Center to Congress. A bipartisan spending package released Monday by House Speaker Mike Johnson includes $32 million for operating expenses at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts through Sept. 30, 2027.

I would say that Trump's "renaming" is more akin to a nickname, and he has a lot of nicknames for a lot of people (which we certainly do not put in the lead of their respective articles for obvious reasons). ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump is very long. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not remotely comparable. Does Joe Biden walk around carrying a "Sleepy Joe" placard? Does his official website call him that? Asamboi (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

He fired the board, appointed new board members, they appointed him as chairman and then put his own name on a building that is a memorial to John F. Kennedy. I can think of a lot of terms to call that. Creating an alternate name is not one of them. Meanwhile RS (as well as the US Congress) are using the actual name and we follow RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason to treat this any differently from a typical DBA. Amazon.com, Inc. has been doing business as "Amazon" for a while, but their legal name remains "Amazon.com, Inc." unless they go through a formal name-change process — just like the Kennedy Center. We have to be fair and apply our PAGs consistently; the Kennedy Center is free to use whatever name they want in their branding materials, and that has no effect on their actual/official/legal name. Significant alternative names should be listed in the first sentence per WP:OTHERNAMES. This situation is comparable to that of the United States Department of Defense (which also uses a "DBA" trick), though certainly not the Gulf of Mexico. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

A private company can do what it wishes. The Kennedy Center is a memorial who's name falls under a Congressional Act. If the courts rule otherwise, that's a different story. Until then, we follow RS. Imagine if he changed the name of the Lincoln Memorial. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

We should follow RSes (among other considerations) to determine the article title. However, our PAGs tell us it is considered good practice to include "significant alternative names" in the lead. I'd say the name that the subject of the article calls itself, legitimate or not, is pretty "significant". We shouldn't stop ourselves from listing it because of a technicality, or for ethical reasons. It doesn't mean we're endorsing the name change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: We shouldn't stop ourselves from listing it because of a technicality, or for ethical reasons. Those aren't the reasons. It isn't included in the first paragraph of the lead because there is no significant sustained usage of this "alternative name" by reliable sources.

Also just to clarify: Trump's rebranding IS mentioned in the lead, but several paragraphs down, in a chronological manner. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

And nobody calls him Ye. Except himself, that is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is this renovations in quotes:

Trump said the Kennedy Center would be shut down for a two-year period for "renovations."

This reads as air quotes / scare quotes and comes across as sarcastic and opinion. This is supposed to be factual; we don't need the author's opinion on the validity of the renovations which is confirmed by the source. ~2026-71017-3 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a direct quote. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't believe how "political" Wikipedia's writers are. Asherkobin (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Asherkobin: I know, totally, right? ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-71017-3 Agreed, they should be removed. ~2026-82830-1 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It was taken care of a long time ago, did you even look at the article itself? ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

it’s the Kennedy Center. Not the trump Kennedy center. Whoever made this adjustment should be banned from making changes to this article. ~2026-76298-8 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Which specific text in the article are you referring to? ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Its own website identifies it as the Trump-Kennedy Center.

While there may be room to debate whether the name change should have been made, the conmmentor's use of lower case letters for "trump" suggests a bias. Perhaps he or she should likewise be banned from editing the article as he or she suggests for whomever made the original change. ~2026-10924-25 (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

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

In the last sentence of the Two-year closure section of the article:

Please include the above mentioned citation. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

From The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2026/02/11/kennedy-center-staff/

A memo to staff, looks like just about everyone will be getting fired. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)