Talk:Donald Trump

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensuses and RfCs

Current consensuses:

NOTE: Reverts to consensuses listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs]], item [n].

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

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

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

4. Lead phrasing of Trump gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College and receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide, without quoting numbers. (link, link 2)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value of $4.5 billion, and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (2016 edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

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 Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn.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

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

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link, link 2)

11. The lead sentence is Donald Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. (link, link 2)

12. The article title is Donald Trump per WP:COMMONNAME policy. (link)

Open RfCs:

• #RfC on including "false" in the lede
• #RfC: Adding Trump Organization leadership onto non-officeholder template?
• #RfC: Election summary in the lede

RfC on including "false" in the lede

The current wording has been in the lede since September and was based on this RfC: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 26#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Recent discussion here has suggested it may be time to take another look at that wording. Based on that discussion I propose four options. (The number of references may be excessive; that could be trimmed before putting it into the article.) MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Options

Option 1: Keep the existing wording:

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

Option 2: Remove "false" from the existing wording.

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial.

Option 3: Proposed new wording:

Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false.

Option 4: Same as proposed new wording #3, but with an additional sentence (proposing two versions, exact wording to be worked out if this option is chosen):

4_A. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate.

4_B. Along with his existing status as a celebrity, such statements resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate."^{(Added Dec.15th)}

Option 5:

Trump made false statements 78% of the time according to the Washington Post. (see Washington Post reference listed in the box below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamen1 (talk • contribs)

Option 6: NEW Same as #1, but with attribution (non-WikiVoice) due to the generalization and quantification:

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies have been characterized as controversial or false.

NEW

Late addition: Option 1A

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

Late addition: Option 1B

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false but those news sources do not accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial or false statements.

Option 1B is to provide context and because I believe Wikipedia editors may be trying to make that inference. There could be an option 1C that adds "but those news sources also accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial and false statements" but I don't know if that is true. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Survey

You can comment briefly on each option if you wish, such as "prefer option #X", "option #X is acceptable", "Oppose option #X". Threaded discussion should go in the next section for ease of reading.

• Option #1 as that best fits WP:NPOV since multiple high quality WP:RS reflect that view. We can cobble at least a dozen sources to support this. Would compromise with option #3 if necessary, but the excessive wordiness and qualifications seems too much. Strong oppose to #2 as it is, at best, incomplete. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think the word "false" may well be excessive, as to declare something "false" means, more or less, that the person/entity doing the review made a thorough review of all relevant facts and determined that the claims were, in fact, false. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases of politics, it isn't the case that all relevant facts are necessarily always available. I might also support option 3, if perhaps the word "false" were changed to "unsupported," which I think is probably a more accurate description of the conclusions of the reviews which have been made. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: The phrasing of option 3 is unfortunately, vague. "...and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" leaves open exactly what are we comparing, and would be improved by saying something like "compared to the statements of other candidates," or "compared to those of other candidates," or similar. 4, being dependent on 3, I can't support based on problems with 3. 6 might work, but might need some clarification that it is referring to statements he made in the campaign, unless data as it comes in supports that his accuracy remains as weak as it had been during the period between the election and being swore in and, possibly, in office. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option #1 - as EvergreenFir said, this is amply supported by multiple, high-quality, reliable-sources, and is extremely important in the context of Trump's career. The historic significance is underscored by the large number of sources describing the level and consistency of the false statements as unprecedented. To omit it would be extremely misguided. Like EF, I would compromise with Option #3 if necessary, but it is needlessly wordy. I strongly oppose #2. Neutrality^talk 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #3 because we need to have a neutral tone. Alternatively, I wonder if an alternative to "false" could be found that better describes the issue, e.g., "unsubstantiated".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #4 I think we should mention that they are false, as it is non a violation of neutrality policies if they are. However I do agree with that should have the extra sentence to clarify why it happened, but I believe it could be more concisely written as Partly as a result of his existing celebrity status and not as Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity which was proposed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 It is what it is, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't need to hide or obscure this important fact with weasel words. I acknowledge John Carter's point that some of what Trump has said (and the subsequent fact checking) is open to interpretation but there's a sufficient number of unequivocal, blatant falsehoods to warrant the current wording with no fear of bias. WaggersTALK 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 Backed up by multiple WP:RS and WP:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 This would seem pretty straightforward. Not only is it amply supported by reliable sources, but also it has been a relatively stable sentence in a contentious article for over two months. For editors concerned with the word "false", perhaps it might be better to rewrite the sentence to instead use "falsehoods" (a common word used by fact-checking organizations). Arguments for removing "false" are pretty absurd. Multiple reliable sources over a long period support the position that Donald Trump lies on a regular basis, so I would say it is a kindness to Trump to say that many of his statements are "false" or "falsehoods" when it is clearly understating the egregiousness of his legendary mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  It's only been stable because we're not allowed to change it. I'd be edit warring right now if it wouldn't result in a ban. Morphh ^(talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option #1 That's what the RSs say. Objective3000 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 per all of the above except the "not censored" part. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED as I understand it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #3 per WP:DUE. Substantially the same as #1, but clearer. I think most readers understand that the major fact-checkers are as close to Objective Truth as we ever get, so this is not the usual attribution as "someone's opinion". They understand that those evaluations are the results of reasonably rigorous research, and that they haven't survived as major fact-checkers without fairly good track records for accuracy. Option #3 tells the reader where we got our information, and that this is not merely the consensus view of a group of Wikipedia editors. Further, the words "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" are important. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer #4_B/4_A + #3, would accept #3 alone however... against #2 as whitewash, against #1 as logically a sin of false numerical equivalence, #6 is a slight improvement, #5 is good faith but suffers from over-specificity and selection bias. The fundamental bug in option#1 is that is says "many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" which can logically be simplified to say "many of his statements were false". The problem is not the word 'false' here, that is not disputed, the problem is the word 'many'. Compared to what? Compared to other candidates? Compared to the 1804 election when candidates were accused of being satanists? According to whom? WaPo? Rival candidates for the Republican nomination? Too many questions here. Option#2 avoids the problem, by keeping 'many' but removing 'false'. Option#4-and-#3 attempts to solve the problem, by splitting 'many...controversial' away from the 'some...false' language, which is an improvement. It is still weasel-words, but it is no longer as biased. It is hard to argue that Trump never said any outright false things, or against their being relatively enough of them that it deserves mention in the lead-paragraphs. It is *also* hard to argue that he said an EQUAL NUMBER of controversial things, as the number of things he said that were outright false; practically every single thing he said was controversial to somebody, whereas the things he said that were false did not rise to *quite* such quantitative heights. Option#1 conflates two things together, and omits that they are substantively distinct in quality AND quantity. To be crystal clear, I do not particularly care if 'some...false' is the qualifier used. I would also be happy with 'many...controversial' followed by 'an unprecedentedly vast number of...false' statements, because that gives the flavor of what we are talking about here. Trump is much more controversial than other candidates, and also much more prone to falsehoods than other candidates, not just in 2016 but in the past N generations. But it is unfair to paint his quantity of falsehoods, as being equal in number to his quantity of controversial statements. That is what option#1 does, and what option#3 (plus #4) attempts to correct. I consider this to be a question of following the WP:Accuracy_dispute guideline. Like the comment by EvergreenFir and Neutrality mention, I am happy to see the wordy choices of "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" be cut down, and I see little wrong with saying "a relatively large number of falsehoods". Or taking a cue from John Carter, "a relatively large number of unsupported statements and outright falsehoods." But the key word is 'relatively' here, and the key structural change is splitting 'false' away from 'many...controversial' as used in the just-prior sentence-clause. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated to cover #4_B, #5, and #6 (see insertions above). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) ...oppose #1_B since it is just flat inaccurate, #1C is not an improvement because it begs the question of why the differential happened and says nothing about the steepness of the differential, plus is probably undue weight since it was Trump-versus-other-repubs for the majority of his campaign June 2015 to May 2016 and only a two-way campaign after Sanders suspended, aka June 2016 to early November 2016. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option #6 (just added), but could agree to Option 3 and 4. Would also be fine with including fact checker attribution to 6 and I'm fine with alternative terms to false. Added a new option 6, because I didn't like any of the others. We can't leave #1 because it's in WikiVoice and the generalization of the body of statements and the selective assessment of statements is someone's judgement, which makes it subjective. It needs to be attributed outside of WikiVoice Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1, seeing as nothing seems to have changed regarding its validity. Oppose #2 strongly unless someone can demonstrate that the veracity of his statements has changed; if it hasn't WP:DUE requires the inclusion of the material. The "reference frame" of NPOV compliance (=when an article is neutral) is set by reliable sources, not by some kind of "balance". About #3, it seemed to me that the veracity of claims is based on comparing the number of falsehoods to the total amount of claims checked, not necessarily between candidates. #4 is claiming that the large number of falsehoods in his claims is merely a matter of the base rate fallacy, in these terms - if nobody can substantiate that the base rate fallacy is indeed the reason why so many of his statements have been deemed false, oppose #4 as a misrepresentation. #5 seems like it may run afoul of WP:UNDUE unless that percentage - and only that percentage - is discussed by many other sources. About #6, I don't think the comments on the veracity of his statements fall under the scope of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at all. And if memory serves, when people talk about Trump's statements being often incorrect they are talking about the statements being incorrect, not just about people calling them incorrect. So unless that memory is incorrect, oppose #6 as well as a misrepresentation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #6. Not #1. Historical note: Trump purposely made many statements that were false, outlandish, and offensive so as to divert Clinton into focusing her campaign message on his temperament rather than on economic change, causing her to lose the Rust Belt. Michael Scherer, "Donald Trump: The Person of the Year", Time, December 19, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 because it's true and not any less neutral than the other options. However, I would accept option #2 as well because "controversial" can encompass the falsehood of many of his statements in his campaign. κατάσταση 04:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Though option 6 would also handle the statement being too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact -- which does not fit with WP:V where support is Op-Ed viewpoint expressions. Actually my impression was that Hillary was the one more characterized as 'deceptive' and that Trump was more 'controversial or offensive' (and sometimes just called nuts). Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 and don't really think this RfC is warranted since we already had one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is certainly well-sourced and the mainstream media agrees fully, which is how Wikipedia works. Plus, it highlights for the reader and draws Attention with a capital 'A' to the in general political sensibilities of Wikipedia editors, their consensus and their completely understandable animosity towards pretty much everything Trump says. Although we cannot explicitly alert the reader to the nature of Wikipedia consensus and how it is reflected in political articles, indirect indications such as this will suffice as an alternative and serve a useful purpose. Marteau (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1, largely per EvergreenFir. Option 3 is not terrible, but it's wordy and amounts to putting the source into the sentence, which shouldn't be necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• not option 4 Due to the heated nature of this talk page, I am now limiting comments only to the first 1-2 sentences of the lede except I am making a small exception. Option 4 raises issues that appear to be opinion. That is not to say that other options contain opinion but attention was given to other non-celebrity candidates. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - It's is not our role to call out things as "false" or "true", it's not even for us to say that things are "controversial". These are opinions, and carry that kind of weight when we use those phrases. We can point out that people disagree with Donald Trump or have made claims to the contrary of what he has said, but any phrasing such as the words I put in quotes denotes a kind of opinion, a choosing of sides as to who is right and who is wrong. Even Hitler's Wikipedia page introduction does not use the word "controversial" to describe him, it relies on facts of what was done and by whom and to whom. Simply say that people disagree with Donald Trump and have opposed him, and have done with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option Zero – Remove the sentence entirely. Given the walls of text consumed in this new debate as well as in prior ones, this sentence looks irremediably flawed. The article text in the campaign section accurately explains his way of speaking, the exaggerations and untruths, the findings from fact-checkers and the impact of this unprecedented approach on Trump's coverage, with the New York Times going so far as admitting to drop "normal" journalism ethics because Trump's campaign was "not normal". I have not seen a proposal yet which would accurately reflect this part of the article contents in the lead section, as we should. Instead, we've got this blanket characterization that "many statements were false" backed by 5 different citations (as if we have to prove it to readers) and no space for a finer analysis. Yes, Trump says weird things, which contributed to his popularity and his eventual election, but also to the backlash against him. No, his words should not be taken literally, and Wikipedia should not fuel the fire of controversy. — JFG ^talk 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1/4: Preferably without "controversial", as that is a separate issue which is harder to quantify objectively - i.e., something like "He frequently made false statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate." zzz (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 is my preference, Option 3 is also fine. I don't much care for #1 (because it generates too much argument) or #6 (we don't have to soften "controversial" by saying "characterized as", everybody agrees his statements were and are controversial), and I oppose #2 (because it omits "false") and #5 (inappropriate for the lede). --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4B - This wording contrasts Trump with other politicians in the past and explains why his "False" statements are important. By leaving "Opinion 1", it creates an illusion that Trump is the only candidate who had said controversial and/or false statements. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 as the term "false" as it used is POV. The fact that we even have this discussion points out that "false" is not unequivocal. It is by definition, therefore, a non-neutral POV. That cannot be erased by how passionately people hold that view so it needs to be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 as it is concise and accurately states what fact checkers and major RS have said. Strong Oppose to Option 2 as it is misleading and post-factual.Daaxix (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4. Option 1; WP:DUE. Option 5 is inappropriate, Option 6; same reason as Option 1. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #2 or just remove that line totally. Something like this would never get into obama's page that he lied about obamacare. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/) KMilos (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:OTHERSTUFF. !Votes which are not based on policy but merely personal preferences are appropriately discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a relevant example of Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS that Obama's "Lie of the Year" award would never be mentioned in his BLP. Why not hold all BLPs to the same standard?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 or 6. Saying that a lot of his statements were controversial already strongly implies that the statements were considered by many people to include false material. But if we keep "false" in the lead, it should not be in wikivoice (even better than that would be to replace the controversial word "false" with a specific example or two of his most egregious falsities). If "false" is included in wikivoice then we need to properly reflect reliable sources (per option "3") that "many" is relative to other candidates (especially Clinton).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• 1, supported by reliable sources, no need to sugar-coat it. 201.27.125.81 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The preponderance of sources have not backtracked on their original reporting and fact checking in which they concluded that Trump has made many false statements. In the original RfC, fully 33 editors supported the current wording, and their arguments were seen to have more weight than the 21 who opposed it, by a large margin. The only thing that has changed since September is that Trump is now the President-elect. That fact does not change anything about how we should describe the conclusions reached by numerous reputable sources. Sources continue to amplify the fact that Trump "has little regard for the facts" [1]; that he continues to make false statements [2][3][4]; and in opinions expressed in reputable publications, that he outright lies.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Our responsibility to our readership is to present unvarnished, verifiable facts without sweetening their meaning with euphemisms (option 2), and word salads and equivocation (options 3, 4, and 6). It's ironic that our definition of reliable sources is based on reputation for fact checking and accuracy, yet while no one has challenged the reliability of these many available sources, they still express doubt that the sources actually checked facts. Astonishing.- MrX 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is a declamatory statement of mainstream-documented fact. False is a factual statement, not a moral judgment. It's not clear why we are revisiting this, and I hope we don't make a habit of it. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 3, both are well referenced and well documented and matter of fact and satisfy WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - existing wording is concise and accurate. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 If people are uncomfortable with the word 'false," they should take issue with the source of the statements, not dissemble reality to suit their comfort levels. RL have been overwhelmingly clear in documenting the atomic basis of Trump's many lies. This wording wouldn't even be controversial hadn't he become a politician and improbably enough, the presumed president elect. (I'm user AgentOrangeTabby, but can't reset my PW right now). 71.91.30.188 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 or remove entirely. Unnecessary non-neutral commentary, exists only to poison the well. -70.162.247.233 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• None; my thoughts mirror JFG's almost to the word. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Concise, supported by reliable sources, and gives WP:DUE weight reflecting the relative importance of this topic. Option 2 and 6 are acceptable, but I still favor Option 1. Options 3-5 are too lengthy for the lead. If we cannot reach consensus, then I would also be fine with removing the sentence entirely. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 There is no question about this. There has already been plenty of discussion about this and the previous RFC. Cited from multiple RS, obvious, factual. Do I really need to go into detail here? It's the truth and we don't need to whitewash it. Centerone (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is a POV violation that, even if it may be true, could go in the header of any politician's article, such as other 2016 US election candidates, yet Trump's is the only one that has it. --Baladoxox (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 (See comments below): It should not be in the lead while not covered in the body of the article, or at least linked to, and None of the above is not an actual option. Because of fact that, "Trump made controversial statements that have been attributed to falsehoods.", it should be covered in this article, just not using the word "Many". Apparently #1 is the consensus choice but only until another RFC that will eventually come to pass. Using this sentence in the WP:Lead section ("Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), is controversial. What are we using as justification that it is a "basic fact" for inclusion in the lead only? There are a multitude of reasonings (policies and guidelines) against using the apparent editorial consensus wording "Many/many", and WP:Bias is only one. Even "IF" there are 560 (I consider this "MANY") false statements (from a source), using "Many" would beg someone to count (certainly tag the word) how many statements he made overall, to quantify "Many". There is reason to question five references (this is a WP:BLP) as being "many", because even fifty references, (out of how many references concerning statements he made?) is considered subjective. Why do we need it in the lead at all? Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Otr500: Seems to me you are really advocating "option zero" to remove this sentence entirely from the lead, unless a lot more of Trump's discourse evaluation is included in the article. As I noted earlier, the text we have in the article is much more nuanced than the lead sentence, however most editors don't seem to mind the discrepancy. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

One would think it would be a given, content not being in the lead (option zero) not covered in the article. Since that option is not on the table, likely from the previous discussion(s), it is apparent editors want it included. At least one editor correctly but unsuccessfully argued my point, that content, especially when controversial, should not be in the lead when not in the body of the article. I think that consensus, or WP:IAR should be examined very closely concerning this and it "should be" far more critical concerning a WP:BLP. It is my opinion that any previous talks, especially when covered by DS, should be decided erring towards full BLP protection. That does not appear to be the case here, and I was not involved in previous discussions. IF we use IAR as reasoning, that it is to make article improvements, then I would think we are sliding down a slope that consensus trumps policies and guidelines, because exceptions can be used as reasoning. Problems are that, 1)- this is a high profile BLP, 2)- certainly controversial and, 3)- covered under WMF madates subject to DS. This would seem to be enough reasoning that these discussions should have been moot yet here we are. In light of this, I suppose, we are left with capitulation and collaboration, at least until others deem it expediant to "follow the rules".

That content has been allowed in the lead (not covered in the article), by silence, it would seem, would not matter when such content is contested with valid reasoning including policies and guidelines. Since none of the above matters I argue that we should try to make any editorial violations worded as best as possible realizing that consensus can change. The word "Most" (editors) is a lot like "Many" (sources) and subject to vague interpretaion. I suppose I missed being placed in the field with "most" other editors. I just don't understand why something as relevant as up to 560 "lies", "falsehoods", or whatever we choose to call them, are not important to be in the article but "MUST" be included in the lead, and it is so important it has to be in the third paragraph above Trump won the general election.

Anyway, you guys have fun with this. I think I am going to bow out and go visit some of the other 5 or 6 million articles where, if nothing else, common sense might have a better chance of prevailing Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the only neutral-point-of-view option. The other options are all clear non-neutral point-of-view pushing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1A is the best option in that it is NPOV, supported by sources, and appropriate given the remarkable underlying events. Oppose option 2 as blurring the lines between this and other situations, which the sources make clear is not appropriate. Oppose option 3 as kinda creating a weasel-wordish, primary-research-ish count comparison; also "fact-checking services" rings strange as a subtype of sources, appearing in the encyclopedic voice. Strongly oppose options 4a and 4b as conflating a couple of different parts of the narrative of the election with this issue; also, not sure it is a consensus in the sources. Oppose option 5 as undue weight on a single source and the oddly specific statistic from the source. Strongly oppose late addition Option 1B as strange and unclear -- it sounds like the encyclopedic voice may be accusing the sources of bias for not having done so, which I think is the opposite of the author's intention; also, original-research-ish. Option 6 is least objectionable, but significantly inferior to option 1A since the relevant fact is that, unlike other candidates who are accused by others of saying false and false-ish things, this candidate has said multiple things that were flatly false. (Summoned by bot.) Chris vLS (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 / 1a (no opinion on the sourcing-difference between them). If I had to compromise on an alternative, then #3 and #6 are viable. First, we set aside discussion of Trump's particular statements or why they have received attention. The focus here, which probably everyone accepts as uncontroversial, is that there has been an extremely unusual and extremely noteworthy number of Reliable Sources saying Trump has made an unusual number of false statements. This is relevant encyclopedic NPOV information. That pretty well rules out #2 as treading close to a policy violation. Oppose #5, it singles out a single source to present a percentage that is misleading to the point of silly. Oppose #4, the sentences are awkwardly written and I doubt a cleaned up version should be packed into the lede. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Irrespective of references, "false" inevitably reads like the judgement or opinion of the person who wrote the article. For this reason, wording such as "were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" is preferable. 109.146.248.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we take this as a comment in favor of option 3? --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I interpret it as meaning "definitely against option#1" with some implied lean towards #3, but they might also be happy with #4 or #5 (they don't say). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion – RfCs with several options to choose from rarely end up with a convincing consensus. I would suggest proposing only one variant. Alternately, a more elegant solution might be to remove the iron-clad "this wording has consensus" notice in the code, as it refers to a campaign-time RfC and it is obvious from the discussion above that consensus has changed to a point where there is literally neither consensus today for that wording nor against it. Hence I would suggest closing this RfC as an inefficient process and just let editors play with the wording as they please. Sure, there might be some warring but there also might emerge some creative solution acceptable by most editors. — JFG ^talk 07:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  I agree that it's going to be difficult for a new consensus to emerge with a multiple choice RfC, but has the past has shown us, editors frequently make ad hoc proposals in RfCs anyway. I firmly disagree with letting editors play with the wording, given how difficult it was to arrive at the current consensus, and the recent influx of WP:SPA and sockpuppet accounts.- MrX 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  Agree with MrX. Something this contentious needs the structure and order of the RfC process, and letting editors play with the content often results in the content being determined by those with the most endurance, not a good way to determine content. If the RfC could be better framed, start over and reframe it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, to abandon any consensus version and just let editors "play with the wording as they please" would be incompatible with the Discretionary Sanctions in effect at this page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the RfC being held is just fine, although the outcome will be ambiguous (because people will leave short comments only giving their opinion on one aspect). Once this RfC is over, rather than implementing immediately whatever the closer believes was the outcome, it might be a good idea to do as JFG suggests, and have a yes-or-no type of RfC on whatever language is the "winner" from this multi-choice RfC process. We may end up with option#1 being the winner from this discussion, and then have a yes-or-no discussion about whether option#1 is still the consensus... and if *that* future discussion ends in no consensus for change, well then, in some ways we wasted our time. But simply having the shortlist of four (or five) options, that THIS current RfC has formulated, is itself helpful; it narrows down the problems people have with the extant September-consensus wording. Which will be useful a year from now, when and if this comes up again. Nobody said wikipedia is an efficient process! JFG should know that from participating in earlier talkpage discussions here.  :-) Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere - Yes, and that's even without requiring separate debates about whether a consensus is in fact a consensus. That's probably why that is never done (to my finite knowledge, that is). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes 47.222.203.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I know it all too well, that's part of the charm of this project… Believe it or not, some topics are thornier than Trumpianisms. The epic New York titling debates of 2002–2016 last resulted in "no consensus on whether we have consensus to agree that there is no consensus". For your entertainment: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it has been done at least once. Short of spending hours researching that at my slow reading speed, it looks to me like certain editors' disruptive refusal to accept a legitimate uninvolved close because it didn't go their way. The solution is policy that forbids that, while providing some recourse to deal with editors who show a lack of competence to close complex debates (that doesn't appear to be the case there). It is axiomatic (but invisible to many) that inadequate process rules result in monumental time sinks around relatively unimportant issues like the title of a single article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree - don't like how it was set up. It guarantees that it stays the same. I added Option 6, but not sure if it's too late for people to review it. The problem with current wording should have been laid out as you can see, people are just going to say it's supported by multiple RS without seeing the problem that the current wording violates NPOV and BLP. Morphh ^(talk) 21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• About the "option 5" proposal, to cite a percentage of false statements given by one source: I think that is appropriate for the article text but not for the lede. The reason for having it in the lede is that it has been WIDELY reported, by many sources with different numerical results, but the common conclusion that the number of false statements is unusually high compared to other politicians. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• There have been suggestions to replace "false" with "unsupported" or "unsubstantiated". That would misrepresent the sources, which evaluated his false claims by the "pants on fire" standard, meaning provably false - as when he denied ever having said something that he clearly did say. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the problem altogether with this RFC. The problem wasn't the word false, it was the use of WikiVoice and quantifying it with a weasel word "many", then applying it to a generalization. As many have said, the RS support that he made false statements. That's not the problem with the sentence. It's taking a judgement about those cherry picked statements and stating as fact a generalization. Morphh ^(talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure if I need to point this out, but the sources used as RS are media organizations that openly supported Clinton. And there are plenty of sources with Trump's team calling them dishonest. So it adds an additional POV element to it and I think !votes that say "the sentence is supported by the RS" should be measured when we're talking about stating this in WikiVoice. Morphh ^(talk) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I look forward to your providing equally research-based reports from independent reliable sources demonstrating that Trump did NOT, in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest. ("Trump's team" doesn't count. They are neither independent nor reliable. Of COURSE they disagree - what would you expect them to do?) As for the editorial position taken by the papers, that's irrelevant - as long as they are sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence of the news/reporting side from the editorial/opinion side. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • MelanieN well, you could perhaps visit the Fox fact checker, but really the 'fact-checkers' are just not the level of normal journalism reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence you seem to think, they are just Op-Eds from external writers to the paper for example Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton. It's an innovative serial format to make use of web journalism, and perhaps worthy to have regular sniping at politician blurbs besides SNL, and for WP use may have WP:WEIGHT of prominence. But it's not due for much more credence and there are enough criticisms on the web about bias and folks taking this too seriously somewhat mentioned at Fact checking. There's just no overall evaluation, or consistent stated basis of evaluation or even of which statements to pick -- it's apparently just whatever of the copious choices spouted that a writer thought most entertaining to review and if it's not badly written ranting or making stuff up it might go forward. I don't even have to go into the fine difference between 'fact', 'evidence' and 'truth' here -- I just have to point to RS sections on WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, fact checkers are NOT "Op-Eds". Sort of the opposite in fact. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how we approach sources. Also, this "Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton" is just ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that we should judge the reliability of sources based on what state/area they're located in? Might want to re-read WP:RSN. In light of such comments your !vote should be appropriately discounted since it is based on complete ignorance of policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek I'll respond in some detail. Fact checkers are opinion articles that should follow guidelines according to my cited WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG. I'm pointing out that stating this line as an article opinion (or else not having the word inquestion) would be more faithful to the WP guidelines and faithfully setting out the cites and that it is only a particular kind of cite involved. Particularly applicable of WP:NEWSORG I think are the bits

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. "

"Whether a 'specific' news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

"One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."

And as an opinion of statements the WP:RS section WP:BIASED also applies, note particularly "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." and "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source."

• For the Washington Post ... allegations of it as biased or part of general media bias has been mentioned in prominent places such as Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal_bias and MediaMatters.org, so regardless of what you or I may feel, the WP:BIASED guide says to attribute the statement. It seems loosely credible -- the paper is writing from a DC-located viewpoint, has an editorial board that endorsed Clinton including with statements like Trump was "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America's enemies," and said if he's elected president, "he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world" here. Though the paper also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies. (Being a DC paper, perhaps critiquing her skill relative to the rest of DC rather than condemning it ? ;-) )
• The Washington post fact-checker series associated to the paper differs from say the Politifact in that it's a 2-reporter series with a link for outsiders to provide topic suggestions that they pick at will from, includes numerous unrated articles and sort of public information items ('guide to detecting fake news', 'everything you need to know about obamacare', 'what may come up in the debate', etcetera). What they say about how they try to run it is as a 'reasonable person' feeling. They also state that differences in coverage for Trump versus Clinton do exist, with more looking at him since he said more. Demonstrably they only did 3 looks at a Clinton line in October for example...
• Secondary views that are negative about their accuracy have been given -- both structurally that the concept is mostly to criticise which drives into inappropriately doing scores - like rating a SNL skit - or indulging in soapboxing like denigrating Cruz saying (correctly) that the tax code is longer than the bible with "This is a nonsense fact." The George Mason University study about Politifact would seem also true here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• MelanieN, The sentence doesn't say anything about other candidates, nor what statements were selected and analyzed. If we were looking at a specific lie, then we could try to find a source that gives a different POV or accept it as such. What we have here is a generalization and quantification, which is fine and IMO an accurate one, but it doesn't make that judgement a undisputable fact. Trump's team can absolutely give their POV on any particular example to say how they think the statement was taken out of context or whatever. Turning it into a generalization can only be combatted with equal generalization, such as the media is dishonest. And there is no shortage or RS on that point, particularly with regard to the RS being used to support the statement. Morphh ^(talk) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Question about option #6, "have been characterized as controversial or false": I don't think anyone contests that they were controversial, do they? I think it is only "false" that is at issue here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  In today's highly polarized American politics environment, it's difficult for a high-level politician to open their mouth and say anything remotely meaningful without it being controversial. I would consider "controversial" a low-value word there, almost noise. In my opinion the word does not convey the meaning supported by RS and appears to be a compromise word that could be dropped with little or no cost to the article. Not that I'm suggestiing yet another option, that can wait for another day and another discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  MelanieN - I think 'characterized' is supported as it means only that something was prominently said which is where multiple prominent op-eds would WP:V even where the content is disputed or coming from biased sources. It also is reflecting as noteable a characteristization that it was not the usual platitudes. I think even the Trump camp has characterized the statements as controversial, and even in WP discussions so ironically 'controversial' seems non-controversial. Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm absolutely okay with Wikipedia's voice being used to say "false" because it is an undisputed fact. We don't need "the sky has been characterized as appearing to be blue." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is your measure of "many" (a large number relative to truthful statements) a subjective term an undisputed fact? You're using an assessment of select statements (likely controversial ones) which were analyzed by fact-checkers. That's fine, but you can't use that stick to measure the body of his statements without any attribution in WikiVoice. You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now. Morphh ^(talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument for option #3 (and I see Mandruss has changed his opinion from #1 to #3). Option 3 cites exactly where we are getting the information - from fact-checking organizations - and the reader can evaluate how much weight they give to the reports of fact-checking organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I voted for #3 as well and I like the #4 addition. I think Dervorguilla added an excellent quote from Time Magazine that is appropriate for the sentence context. My thought with adding 6, was that it was a minimal change to 1 which would make it compliant with policy by taking it out of WikiVoice. Morphh ^(talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Morphh! But it would be more accurate to say, "Dervorgulla's excellent paraphrase from Time magazine..." :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Morphh: My measure of "many" is an undisputed fact. Trump makes false statements more often than truthful statements. In fact, the scope of his lying has been described as unprecedented. Many reliable sources (example) go so far as to state lying was part of Trump's campaign strategy. The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing, particularly when dealing with a BLP who has a tendencey to sue. Some of the other comments above by you, such as the one about how he makes more false statements than true ones, seem to ascribe to you a truly amazing degree of knowledge regarding every word spoken by the man, as it would only be someone who has such amazingly detailed knowledge who would be in a position to be able to determine the relative frequency of accurate and inaccurate statements. And the only "reliable source" among the "many" you allege exist about how "lying" was a part of the campaign strategy is from an editorial, which we rarely if ever consider truly "reliable" for anything other than the opinions expressed.

I am no fan of Trump myself, far from it, but I have to say that some of the comments being made here seem to me to be possibly be problematic in and of themselves, and might merit some sort of review, particularly if they assert things which, apparently, even the sources produced don't necessarily assert. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not me making these statements. It's reliable sources. I linked to several in my comment. Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. That's why I chose "option 1", because any watering down of "false" would be an egregious failure of our duty to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that #3 waters anything down; if anything, it adds weight to the statement. It is not the usual hedging that we associate with attribution. I ask that you consider my !vote argument with an open mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey - re whether "undisputed fact"... Plainly 'false' is disputed even inside the current TALK. More of interest for article phrasing seems whether it is improperly stating an evaluation as an objective fact, is too vague such as whether this mixes in hyperbole and stupidity or which flavor of 'false' or what percentage of true there is, is unclear why the norm of a politician deception is noteworthy for this particular case, and so on. Since the article word seems putting forward a paraphrase specifically of the fact-checker content, then I think any article use of it should make that clear and reflect the WP:NEWSORG guidelines in both handling and attribution stating it as a specific kind of opinion. If the article line is looking for a generally not disputed overall characterization, then I think both parties have said 'controversial' and perhaps also 'sometimes offensive', but clearly disagree about 'false'. If you think the line is not to be only about the prominence of Politifact et al, then WP:NPOV applies and both positive and negative words would go in according to how prominent they were in use -- and I'm seeing "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, ..." so 'false' might not make the cut.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, disagree that the word 'false' is disputed, by most people commenting here, at least. (If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false, as opposed to being false-on-the-basis-of-unsupported-by-evidence, false-on-the-basis-of-hyperbolically-decorating-the-plain-truth-for-'impact', or the more usual sort of false-on-the-basis-of-being-incorrect-without-further-clarification-of-meaning as well as false-by-accident.) There is little question that sources *do* very much say Trump said *more* false things than other candidates, in percentage terms and in absolute terms. But it is also the case that, as you point out with your list of negative-words, the bulk of the sources tend to criticize Trump's statements in terms of how controversial they were, WAY MORE than in terms of how truthy they were. The main thrust of proposal #3, as I see it, is to stop lumping the 'many...controversial' things in together with the *different* kind of 'relatively-many...false-things-according-to-fact-checkers'. (Personally I believe we could strip the according-to-fact-checkers-bit, as long as we keep the 'relatively' qualifier.) It is correct to say that the quantity of false things was nowhere NEAR the quantity of controversial things, but it would be borderline-non-neutral to simply remove mention of the high relative percentage of false things compared to other candidates (as #2 does in my view), just as it is inaccurate to lump the false things in with the controversial things as #1 does ("Trump has many apples or bananas" is the problem here... we need wikipedia to be saying that Trump had way more apples relative to other candidates, and also-comma had more bananas plus a higher percentage of bananas relative to other candidates.) Saying that without being too wordy is difficult, but #3 is a good start. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Most fact-checker organizations use the term "false" with great specificity, when referring to statements that Trump has made that are untrue. There appears to be significant agreement on this talk page that "false" is the most appropriate term. Trump has also made statements that are offensive for a variety of reasons, so the catch-all "controversial" seems appropriate. Again, there appear to be significant agreement on this talk page that "controversial" fits those instances. I would also suggest an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey - the difference in an article wording TALK is that WP:V for both 'controversial' and 'offensive' exist from Trump and critics, so that wording would be regarded as commonly said (i.e. common meaning both say it). Whether a campaign sub-story (cites Dec 2015- Sep 2016) re 'false' still has enough prominence now to suit the lead would perhaps drive it out, and if it stays perhaps it will be rewritten for this or other reasons. And in a year or so other things may crowd it out anyway. Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Based on a discussion elsewhere, I have added an alternate wording to option #4. If this option is chosen, we can work out the exact wording later. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks much 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Two general comments in response to the above: 1) We are talking about the lede sentence, so detail and explanation are not appropriate. The detail and explanation go below in the text. The lede summarizes what is in the text. It is unusual to have citations in the lede, but that was recommended by the closer of the previous RfC. 2) It is simply incorrect to state that fact-checking sites are "op-eds". Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality. If someone says that Obama proposed admitting 200,000 Syrian refugees, and Obama actually proposed admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees, then the statement's truth or falsity is not a matter of opinion. If someone insists they never said something, and there is video proving that they did, that again is not a matter of opinion. That is the kind of statement that fact-checkers evaluate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• While it is true that fact-checkers are not op-eds, they can suffer from bias, in particular selection bias where they decide which statements NOT to fact-check (thus altering the final percentages by disproportionately deep-digging for new falsehoods and/or by disproportionately eliding truthful statements on individual candidates). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Some of it is extremely nitpicky, like saying Trump falsely used the term "acid wash" when referring to "bleach bit" software, or falsely said Obama drew a "line in the sand" in Syria when actually Obama called it a "red line".[12]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• NBC News is not what MelanieN is calling "fact-checking sites". But I have no doubt you could cherry-pick some extremely nitpicky stuff from the fact-checking sites. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I could, and will if anyone would like. NBC does fact-checking, so it seems like a fact-checking site, but maybe Melanie meant sites that exclusively do factchecking. Might I suggest that we focus on Trump's biggest falsity, and then consider it for inclusion in the lead, instead of including a vague assertion that smacks of namecalling? What we have now is equivalent to "liar, liar, pants on fire", and it might be better to say that Trump insisted the Earth is flat (assuming he said so), and leave it at that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Melanie - the applicable policy for an evaluation isWP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Without an attribution it's neither clear what the line is referring to and the line is not following WP guidelines.

Secondly - the question of if this is a now past time item or something about a campaign no longer due elevation, may have lead somewhere -- about two thirds of commenters want to reword or delete the line. But it seems those are coming from many aspects and are scattered. It might narrow things down to ask which one folks LEAST want and then pick between the two remaining and work on the specific from there.

And -- you really are giving a fantasy above about fact checkers, but it's not the RFC so I'll suggest you simply accept input was given that opinions about statements are opinion pieces and move along. If you must debate how bad they are more than I've already provided above, then post to my TALK page and we'll see if we can pursue cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:Anythingyouwant, to answer your question, I do mean "sites that exclusively do factchecking" and that is the kind of source that is provided. And no, User:Markbasset, I do not accept your assertion that evaluating the truth of a statement by checking it against observable reality is an "opinion", any more that it is an "opinion" for a scientist to make a measurement, or a teacher to evaluate a test answer as correct or incorrect. I know that a prominent Trump surrogate recently claimed that "there are no such things as facts anymore,"[13] but I do not accept that - and I don't think Wikipedia does either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:MelanieN, I don't understand why we would want to prefer full-time fact-checkers to part-time fact-checkers, assuming they are both at reliable sources, but in any event the former can be just as fallible as the latter.[14][15]. If we want to refer to one as opposed to the other, can we please do so more clearly in the proposed language for the lead? Also, what do you think about the idea of mentioning one or two of Trump's biggest whoppers in the lead, instead of merely a vague accusation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not MelanieN, but I'll answer. It would be backwards to put a couple of examples in the lead instead of the concise summary that is currently there (see WP:LEAD). Trump's reputation for making false statement is not only documented by fact checking organizations. There is a very large body of sources to draw from. The American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source for checking facts from actual reliable sources.- MrX 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN -- Please base on WP guidelines -- WP:NEWSORG is the WP guidance that states any analysis is to be presented as attributed statement, i.e. that persons opinion, and WP:BIASED allowing attributed opinions. As to your beliefs re their nature ... they go against WP guidelines and are demonstrably not a match to the actual pages behavior or considering the points of their critics, particularly the selection bias of their picking is not an overall on the person or organized but seems largely an hot-item-of-the-day being critiqued however they want to. Seems a decent thing to have a place to ridicule politicians -- but also they seem just getting ratings, lack methodology, and just would not rate highly as sources by WP standards.

• For example: (a) "exclusively do factchecking" nope ... Washington Post fact checker current first 19 items are 8 (42%) unrated articles; and even of rated items I see one condemning the internet at large about Pizzagate, and one aggregating up prior items to a worst of 2016 and not a direct check of someone ; and (b) "checking it against observable reality" -- note the lack of written guidance re methods of selection or mechanism of evaluation and subjective scoring. Looking at their first attributed piece "Trump’s outdated claims that China is devaluing its currency" ... they say "China hasn’t devalued its currency for about two years" ... not saying the specific fact there, and since the fact was August 15 of 2015 their "about two years" is exaggerated. That the Chinese currency controls still exist or that no devaluation steps have been needed since dollar has been rising lately were not mentioned as considered, nor is any alternative way to view the statement or any input of the other side. I can go with outdated a bit re 'devaluation' being a year ago, but why they awarded this 4 bad marks of a 'whopper' is unstated and unsupported by any literal metric or method -- it's just their subjective pick. Neither the 'about two years' nor the worst possible rating seem to meet WP norms of documenting, nor would the lack of other views pass the WP norms of NPOV.
• Look, the Post site is just two columnists in a DC market or viewpoint that are writing items to get ratings for their website ... it's a nice enough thing but they're not claiming to be infallible or objective and WP guidance would not give these two columnists a ranking higher than scholarly pieces for the same topics. That at least one scholarly study cited another such site as biased and that other NEWSORG articles flame some of their pieces as ridiculous are demonstrable facts. WP practice does report notable opinions as a notable opinion and so this seems a reasonable prominence to be in the article -- but not as an imagined prefect measure of truth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your view of fact checking sources seems to be in the minority here, probably because it's founded on broken logic like source "not claiming to be infallible or objective". I suggest you raise your concerns at WP:RSN.- MrX 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MelanieN said. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MrX, MelanieN, and Objective3000 said. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkBassett is pointing out that fact-checkers, just like journalistic organizations in general, can be *biased*. Fact-checkers are almost unique, actually, because their specific mandate is to cherrypick statements which can be proven false. "Donald Trump held a campaign rally in Ohio during December 2016" is obviously a statement, and it obviously has a truth-value (it might be pants-on-fire or it might be mostly false or partially false or whatever). In this case, it is *slightly* controversial because I said 'campaign rally' and technically the campaign season is over, and it was a presidential rally or maybe a presidential-transition-rally, but since it was paid for with leftover campaign funds, I'll rate the statement as Almost Entirely True. Point here is simple: telling MarkBassett to take his concerns to RSN is wrong. The problem is not that fact-checkers are non-reliable (by wikipedia standards), the problem is that we have to be very careful not to say things like "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump is a fucking liar" as some commenters seem to wish we would, when in fact the only way to neutrally phrase it is to say "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than other presidential candidates". Note that we CANNOT say, without violating NPOV, that "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than Hillary Clinton" unless we are positive that fact-checkers as a group are not suffering from systemic bias. MarkBassett is arguing that is NOT the case, and his argument is not invalid. But just as there are limits to how far you can go, with known-to-be-biased sources, there are also limits on how far we ought to restrict ourselves: comparing Trump vs Clinton is dangerous, because there is evidence that fact-checking-organizations as a group suffer from bias towards one of the parties, or at least, bias against Trump's party. Comparing Trump to not just Clinton, but to all ~~25 candidates (repub/dem/L/G) in the 2016 cycle, and especially to all 100+ major candidates since dedicated fact-checking organizations became a fad, and saying that "Trump makes more false statements relative to other candidates according to fact-checkers" is a perfectly valid summarization. But we have to be careful here, and communicate to the reader what we are actually saying, and what we are actually not. "Trump makes many false statements" is way too weasel-wordy of a summary, we need to be precise, even if that means we need to be a bit more wordy in our summarization. As simple as possible but no simpler. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the words "liar" or "Hillary Clinton" anywhere in the options, and I'm lost as to why you are going to such great lengths to argue against language that is not on the table in this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, the wording was quasi-proposed, in a running argument which started on the 14th and mostly ended on the 15th. So my going to such great lengths, was to try and convince people that were using unsupported / falsehoods / untrue / lies / damn lies / statistics, as if they were identical (and in particular as if fact-checking was unbiased enough to back up *any* of those terms rather than just merely some of them used carefully), should be considered unwise. We have to be careful with our language, because linguistic precision is the coin of the realm here on wikipedia. Only way to achieve neutrality, only way to avoid endless arguments about whether sentences need to be reworded, and so on. Here is the backtrail, in case you care still, and so that it is all in one place should the topic of 'liar' come up again in the future at some point -- not bluelinking these usernames since I'm just verbatim quoting what they said, here on the talkpage earlier in this thread.

• "...Trump did..., in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest [per fact-checkers/etc]." ... --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...the Washington Post ... endorsed Clinton ...also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies. ... Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now. Morphh (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing..." John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. ..." Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false..." 47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• and then my own hypothetical above, wherein I argue that fact-checkers CANNOT be used to support 'liar' because they care nothing for intent (and are biased via the combination of selection bias as well as media bias besides)

To be 100% clear, nobody (not even scjessey who was quite clear on that point) was attempting to add the liar-option, and I expect nobody will. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Partial self-correction, there is a new option containing "Hillary Clinton", added after your comments above. Still no "liar". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Usernamen1: - Re: [16][17][18] 1. Your editsum seems to say that my revert was improper per WP:TPO, but the RfC options are "public domain" and your additions are not "somebody else's comment". 2. As I stated in my editsum, Option 1 is for "status quo", "no change", and there is reason or benefit to muddying that water with an Option 1B that in fact requires a change. 3. As you have it now, Options 1 and 1A are the same option, adding to the confusion. 4. Your new option 1B could just as easily be a new option 7. 5. You are creating a mess (similar to the mess of an RfC you started at the WikiProject, which had to be aborted) and I respectfully suggest you use more caution until you have more experience with the organization of complex discussions and RfCs in particular. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Option 1B gives some important perspective than 1A lacks so if an option 1 is chosen, strongly consider 1B. I am not certain which option and am not entering in an extended discussion but merely raise a consideration worth pondering. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (Note: I moved this comment from the "Close early" section to the "Discussion" section where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

@Usernamen1: IMO Option 1B should be called Option 7, and I would appreciate it if you would change it to an Option 7. It is NOT just a minor variation on Option 1. It is not like 4a&b, which are basically equivalent; they say the same thing in slightly different wording, with exact wording to be worked out if that option is chosen. It is assumed that people who choose 4, 4a, or 4b are favoring virtually the same thought, and will accept any negotiated wording that conveys that thought. But your option 1B is not equivalent to option 1, not at all. It introduces an entirely new idea (which may or may not be sourceable). If someone supports option 1 (your 1A) that does mean that they would be equally happy with 1B; I suspect many would oppose 1B (or 7). Anyhow, I second what Mandruss said. Please do not disrupt this discussion by introducing multiple new options, especially after so many people have already commented. Please leave the Options section alone (unless it is to change 1B to 7), and limit your comments to the Comments section. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I authorize MelanieN to make those requested changes described immediately above. In an attempt to withdraw from the article, I am abandoning all efforts and edits in this article with the exception of the first paragraph, which I have devoted significant time and wish to see it to a resolution. I could change my mind and expand into more areas of this article but choose not to. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Usernamen1: - mmm think 1 is 'zero change' so you are talking an option 7 here... and for wording might need a relook. "Many of" has been discussed as vague, and "but those news sources do not accuse Hillary" isn't the case and is dragging offtopic a bit. Would it suit your context point if phrased 'unusually' such as "His statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were noted by media coverage for being unusually controversial or false" ? Markbassett (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

@MrX, MelanieN, Objective3000, and Mandruss: What MarkBassett said... There's also a rather troubling piece by journalist Bryan MacDonald (in RT), “Facebook’s ‘Anti-Fake News’ Plan Looks Like Effort to Curb Alternative Media”. It quotes the widely repeated Breitbart story about PolitiFact.

   “As Breitbart observed: ‘When Trump said Clinton wants “open borders,” PolitiFact deemed his statement “mostly false” — despite the fact that Clinton admitted as much in a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”’”

May I have your thoughts as to the accuracy and verifiability of factchecker–checkers relative to the factcheckers whose fact-checking they check? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: - Did somebody propose Facebook as a fact-checker that we should pay any attention to? If not, I'm missing the point there. And are you really citing one "widely repeated" error (if it's in fact objectively an error) as somehow indicative of PolitiFact's overall reliability? If not, I'm missing that point too. If the one error is so rare that it needs to be milked to such an extent, that would tend to suggest more credibility, not less.
In any case, Markbassett's latest comments do not seem inconsistent with Option 3, which is my current !vote. My support for MrX above was meant as opposition to the apparent (or perceived) claim that we should omit the word "false" because fact-checkers are not reliable. I stand by that opposition until somebody shows me something relatively objective that says fact-checkers have a serious reliability problem—something like a peer-reviewed academic analysis from an institution not well-known as being a partisan think tank. Without that, we might as well skip the debate and just democratic-vote, since that leaves us with only our personal opinions and those of the sources we cherry pick to support them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: No comment. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX, MelanieN, Objective3000, and Mandruss: More focusing on discussing article text and WP guidelines of the RFC topic... Even if the Bio lead would still retain this now-past bit of a particular subset of reporters at the lead level, my input was that the wording issues about it seem too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact, which does not fit with WP:V so I recommended option 2 (remove) though note option 6 (attribute-voice) would handle some. I have explained this was based on seems vaguely talking with wording dominant or tied to fact-checker sites but not stating that, which runs counter to WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG ("reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"), that as crafted it is a general line where WP:NPOV directs other adjectives should be presented (""including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight"). If my input or reasons are unclear RSVP, otherwise just accept that there was an input like this. Markbassett (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I do have trouble parsing a lot of your language, so it's quite possible I fail to understand you. Option 3 makes no statement of fact except to concisely state what fact-checking organizations have said (which easily passes WP:DUE) and attributes the statement to them. Do you claim that that is not an accurate concise statement of what they have said?
too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact - I reiterate, the word "false" in Option 3 is not phrased as fact. Only Option 1 phrases it as fact, all other options that include the word avoid the use of wiki voice for it. I assume you understand the concept of wiki voice—if something is not in wiki voice, it is not a statement of fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:} In ranking, Option 2 and 6 came off better. Option 3 attribution and vagueness made it look worse than option 1 though it improves the part for wikivoice aspect. The word "services" and the cites shown convey it as meaning not about websites Politifact et al. But mostly the "relatively large number" seemed adding an additional vague and odd phrase on top of the existing issues. It's just not clear to me what that meant to say or if it's even the right paraphrase for cites or theme perhaps also said 'noted for extreme falsehoods'. The 'relatively large number' could go into 'relative to what' of is it 'relative to who' or is it meaning percentage of what he says or relative to how magnitude number for a richter 8.3 whopper or what. So to me overall Option3 just looked like a worse wording choice. Perhaps a more generic phrasing of it as 'unusual' instead of reltively large number' Markbassett (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett:
1. The cites can be changed and in my opinion are not actually a fixed part of any of the options.
2. The meaning of "relatively large number" is explained in the wording: "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates". What could be more clear than that?
3. All concise statements are necessarily "vague". That includes your current preferred option, Option 2: "Many [how many?] of his statements in interviews [what interviews?], on social media [what social media?], and at campaign rallies [what campaign rallies?] were controversial {controversial to whom?][what do you mean by 'controversial'?]." I can't imagine prose suitable for the lead that could pass your vagueness test. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:} Umm ...

Being casual about finding cites later doesn't sniff right. Is there a specific, fixed thing trying to be said there or not ? In any case, this was discussing the options listed with context of cites provided, not as hypothetically other words and other cites could be made.

As to what would be more clear than "relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated' Well I though if it can be read as "one more fib than Hillary" or "they chose to evaluate him more often than anyone else" it's not only vague but inappropriately so. In any case I saw it as ADDING a potential new mess so that's why that one didn't suit me. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: At this point, you're not only repeating the same arguments, you're actually recycling some of the same sentences. You argument is largely premised on the idea that fact checkers are biased, so their fact checks are an opinion, and opinions must be attributed. MelanieN gave the best refutation of that when she wrote " Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality."

@Dervorguilla: Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that fact checkers are not always correct. To support that, you provide a single instance of Russia Today citing Breitbart. I rest my case.

Some folks seem to think we can't use the word "many" because it's vague. It's not vague; it's an imprecise generalization, but it has a clear meaning that is understood by any third grader. I explained this in more detail in the previous RfC.- MrX 13:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Side note: Given Markbassett's difficulty understanding the language of Option 3, it might be better worded as follows: "Trump made many controversial statements, and fact-checking services evaluated more of his statements as false than those of other candidates." The phrase "relatively large number" would be eliminated. But that decision does not need to be made in this RfC (or any RfC), and we certainly don't need another option. The RfC is not about copy editing questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If 3 (or 4) is chosen, we can certainly tweak the wording as long as we keep the same meaning. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss - My comment was WP:NEWSORG quote, and if you've chosen to not hear that and a lot of side questions got put in, is perhaps your issue more than mine. Look if you cannot understand I saw three as worse than two then you're not respecting 'Mark honestly sees 3 as worse than 2' or not looking to do WP-based discussion. Meh -- say your piece, and listen for others to make their points. Markbassett (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe people are still arguing about the accuracy of "fact checkers". A few right wing opinion sites (like Breitbart) complain about them, but no serious organizations have done so. They are highly regarded reliable sources, because they would lose all credibility if their material wasn't unimpeachably accurate and are thus self policing. It's time for this line of argument to die, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of "Many" in the lead: Many should never be used because it is an unknown quantity and five references (out of all the reliable news reporting agencies) is not a true quantifier. The use of "many" is loaded language and a slippery slope because there are sources (many?) that claim (and possibly 5 might be reliable) that Trump may be the Antichrist". Should this be in the lead? Should any mention that he is considered a liar be in the lead especially when not included in the body of the article? Is it weasel words? Is it original research? Is it SYNTH? Is it labeling? I submit: Yes, yes, yes, and yes. There is no section in the article concerning the current content in question at all. The article and section Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Campaign misstatements does use "many"; "Politifact named "the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump" as its "2015 Lie of the Year", but that is not one of the references in the article. Was there celebrations in the streets (or rooftops)? Certainly not "thousands and thousands but some evidence that there may have been more than one-- in New Jersey.

If there is an article (with section) on "Campaign misstatements"? Why is some mention (link) excluded from the article body? The WP:lead states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". Are we considering the sentence a "basic fact" as justification for article lead inclusion?

I could go on but Markbassett did a pretty good job in his comments about certain "fact checkers" and bias. The above mentioned "Campaign misstatements" includes "...fact-checkers "have to be really careful when you pick claims to check to pick things that can be factually investigated and that reflect what the speaker was clearly trying to communicate.". As a BLP we are mandated by the WMF, as well as policies and guidelines, to "get it right", ---or we should "leave it alone". Otr500 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Many seems like a perfectly good word to me. And, it is the word used in the sources. There are no cases of WP:RS claiming that Trump is the Antichrist. No, there were not thousands and thousands of folk celebrating 9/11 in the streets of Jersey City. As for claims of biased fact checkers, this is not the page to argue about what is or is not a reliable source. Objective3000 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I miised it. Which of the five references uses "many"? I didn't see the word in any of them. It still seems to me to be a vague and ambiguous word. We are using it to list that Trump has told "many" lies (whitewashed of course), supported by five references. Why not use what the references state? If Trump was given the title "King of Whoppers" by FactCheck.org or the PolitiFact.com 2015 Lie of the Year award then why not use that? Do we not use attribution for this reason?

Why, out of all the material in the four paragraphs in the lead, is there the one statement, not supported in the body of the article, that has to have five references? I submit it is because it does not belong there without supporting mention in the main article, or at least a relevant link? I think it is fair to mention and question this. Can we not add something in the article to make the sentence lead worthy? All the sections except religion (and how is the "Health" subsection related to the "Religion" section?), including some sub-sections, have "Main articles", "See also", or "Further information" listed. Something so important, that it just has to be listed in the lead, that also happens to have an article subsection on alledged "misstatements", doesnt' deserve mention in this article?

If there is some reason we don't want mention, in the body of the article about these "controversial or false" statements, then at the least, how about "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false". Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the word "false" is vague and not adequately supported by the cited sources. A more accurate summary of the sources would say something like "more than Clinton" instead of "many". See the subsection immediately below for more info about how we are taking sources out of context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We should not take material out of context from the sources

We are grabbing a word ("false") from cited sources without context. Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." An existing footnote in the lead is this: Cillizza, Chris. "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false", The Washington Post (July 1, 2016). This Cillizza source says this (emphasis added): "Now, there's some context that's necessary here....Trump has been fact-checked 38 more times than Clinton. And, yes, PolitiFact was the one deciding what statements to fact check. This is not a comprehensive guide to the relative truthfulness of every word uttered by Trump or Clinton in this campaign. But, the number of times his statements have been ruled 'false' or 'pants on fire' is still substantially higher than it is for her." Editors here seem oblivious to the problem with omitting context that the reliable source says is "necessary". That is a major no-no anywhere in any Wikipedia article, not to mention in the lead where we have the most controversial sentence of a high-profile BLP. Editors will not even allow this context within the footnote, much less in the text of the lead. [19] If we include the necessary context, then the sources are reliable, and otherwise they are not (the Cillizza article says "news" in the URL,[20] and WaPo identifies Cillizza as a "reporter"[21]).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Close early?

This seems unlikely to happen given continued discussion. This section can be re-opened whenever appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My summary of !voting to date follows. We could apply a weighted split-vote system in an attempt to be more precise, but in this case I think looking at only the first-stated !vote is sufficient. As we have a prior consensus for the current language (Option 1), and as the trend here seems clear enough, I think we should consider closing early. RfCs are automatically de-listed after 30 days, but there is no requirement to run one that long. By my reckoning Option 1 has 51.4%—only a slight majority, but a sizable plurality considering that there are 8 options (including Option 0). Comments? (Tallies current as of !vote by user 70.162.247.233) 1 - 18 - EvergreenFir, Neutrality, Waggers, Casprings, Scjessey, Objective3000, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Volunteer Marek, Marteau, Mike Christie, zzz (Signedzzz), Daaxix, 201.27.125.81, MrX, SPECIFICO, Sagecandor, Pete (Skyring), 71.91.30.188 (AgentOrangeTabby) 1B possibly but not 1A - 1 - Usernamen1 2 - 7 - John Carter, Markbassett, Judgesurreal777, DHeyward, KMilos, Anythingyouwant, 70.162.247.233 4 - 4 - Emir of Wikipedia, 47.222.203.135, MelanieN, Yoshiman6464 3 - 3 - Jack Upland, Mandruss, Adotchar 6 - 3 - Morphh, Dervorguilla, κατάσταση (Katastasi) Not 4 - 1 - Usernamen1 0 (remove sentence) - 1 - JFG 5 - 0 ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Not quite yet Thanks for the tally. But the RfC has been open only 5 days. Wouldn't a week be a normal minimum time to keep it open - recognizing that some people edit only on one or two days of the week? Let's look at this again on the 19th. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC) PS and in the meantime please keep the tally current. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Roger wilco. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Btw it looks like there are actually four !votes for option "4" (which has two slightly different wordings but is still the same option). So option 4 should probably be listed above the options that had only 3 supports. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Yeah, it's hard to see the benefit of two sub-options with no discernible difference in meaning. Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC) There is a discernible difference, not to my own eyes, but to some people: read the notvote by Emir of Wikipedia saying they support #4, but without the 'partly as a result' portion (materially changing the meaning!), and the final comment over here by Jo-Jo Eumerus where they are okay with #4_B but see #4_A as a "misrepresentation" which is attempting to 'explain away' the prior sentence. Although I personally do not see much difference between 4_B and 4_A, they both sound the same to me, at least two wikipedians interpreted the phrases as being very distinct (and interpreted them differently from Mandruss and myself it seems!). I also think that whether to insert #4A/#4B as a supplement to the existing intro-sentences, is a distinct question from how to phrase the existing sentence about falsehoods, but that is a structural problem with RfC's where people only notvote for one single option. Speaking of which, although as yet they haven't modified their notvote text here, Jo-Jo Eumerus on their user-talkpage indicated that they would support #1 followed by #4_B (although not by #4_A). Does not change the tally above, since (structural limits again) as written #4B can only piggyback on #3, of course. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Agree with MelanieN that keeping the RfC open is preferred. There is always hope that new eyeballs will appear, who can sway the consensus with their wise input... plus from a practical standpoint closing this RfC early, actually changes nothing in mainspace, since the 'winning' option by nose-count is already in mainspace... so why hurry up and close something that results in no difference for the readership? Leave it open please. Lastly, although this nose-counting is not WRONG per se, it is just nose-counting. What matters is whether the arguments are policy-backed. Notvotes like "we already had an RfC months ago with different people participating" are obviously not policy-based arguments! WP:PRECEDENT does not apply, so I think the RfC is in reality closer than the nose-counting would indicate. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Keep open per RFC guidelines" . WP:RFCEND states that the default is an RFC open for 30 days. With an article like Trump, extra caution should be taken. Therefore, keeping it open for the full 30 days is wise. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC) To clarify, nose-counting was never intended to be the end-all, but it is useful information for discussions of early close. Absent some purpose like that, I would never produce tallies because I think they can influence !voting. But now that this section exists, I plan to keep the tallies updated per MelanieN's request unless we prefer to remove or hat this section. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I'll suggest keep it open more for the said comments and different views as long as they come. Such as the topic of if the line has become dated, the comment that 'controversial' somewhat overlaps 'false' (or my 'offensive'), about whether the line is conveying this as at all unusual, if it's meaning fact-check sites or what, etcetera. I'm also dubious about counting into !votes or early ones who didn't see the later-appearing options, and 201.27.125.81 seems odd... Ehh. input provided, for what its worth. Markbassett (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Mark makes a good point about ongoing discussion. Even if the "voting" has slowed down, active discussion suggests that the topic is not ready to be closed. When I summarized the "counties" thread here, it was because nobody had added anything for five days. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN: - Given the responses here, this seems likely to go the full 30. My experience with these highly contentious issues is that people will continue to discuss as long as discussion is open, long after discussion has become circular (we're already partly circular after one week). There are infinite ways you can state the same argument, and new participants are always arriving, fresh and ready to receive the baton from their exhausted predecessors in the cause. In that case there is little benefit to the tallies and I suggest hatting the subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Trump Organization leadership onto non-officeholder template?

So the previous discussion mainly evolved around whether it was appropriate to use the "officeholder" infobox template to list Trump's chairmanship at the Trump Organization as an office. Since Edge3 switched it into the current non-officeholder template however, I feel that there is now applicable to add the Trump Organization on the infobox as I have shown here. This edit, however, was removed by RedBear2040 citing "no consensus". So is it possible to get an agreement going here to implement it for good? I also am aware of the ongoing RfC on this topic, but that was in the context of the "officeholder" template that was still being used, so it has become a little irrelevant to me. Thanks. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Chairman and President of The Trump Organization
Occupation	Real estate developer
Years active	1971–present
Preceded by	Fred Trump
Known for	Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago
Net worth	$4.5 billion
Books	Trump: The Art of the Deal
Television	The Apprentice
Website	trump.com

Looks greats. Well done. I support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Very neat and professionally made. I as well support this. Archer Rafferty (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

But Trump is better known as president-elect of the U.S. and from Jan. 2016 (although I do not have a crystal ball) will be better known as president of the U.S. and in all likelihood will resign his positions at the Trump Organization. TFD (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - as it's not a political office. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: my understanding is that Bokmanrocks01 has created this to use for the business portion of the infobox which will be the politician's infobox with this inserted into it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, but I still oppose it. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's visually unappealing because of the myriad of random information crammed in, and it looks no different than a typically infobox for an office holder. It makes no difference. RedBear2040 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I submit that adding an entire new section to the infobox makes it look a lot different from a typical infobox for an officeholder. I further submit that that is precisely the point of adding it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Chairman and President of The Trump Organization
Occupation	Real estate developer
Years active	1971–present
Preceded by	Fred Trump
Known for	Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago
Net worth	$4.5 billion
Books	Trump: The Art of the Deal
Television	The Apprentice
Website	trump.com

If coloration aka 'blending in' is a problem, one advantage to the WP:OUTBOX is that we can control how subections look. Instead of following the pale-blue style of the infobox_officeholder we can use distinct colors, if we wish. Example using linen to the righthand side. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Even if he resigns TTO, he will have been head of it for 45 years. The infobox summarizes his entire life, and he will forever be far more businessman than politician, regardless of what he's better known for. The goal of the article is to tell readers what they don't know. It should be emphasized that the business chunk would go below the president chunk, as in this revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – It is clearly not a political position but it is also clearly the dominant aspect of Trump's life and career. Inclusion is a no-brainer. Format looks acceptable, although I would still prefer using standard modules (can be tweaked properly after consensus for inclusion is established). — JFG ^talk 06:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As long as it doesn't use the word "office" when talking about his business dealings, I'm okay with it. It is absolutely essential that "office" not be used in the context of his business dealings or it will confuse readers who associate the word with politics. As long as that is the case, I really don't matter which template we adapt to the task. That said, so many business people go on to be politicians I'm surprised a template for such does not already exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It solves the problem of being a non-office holder/businessman. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see how this changes the consensus of not incluing his business position as a political office, since it is still presented as such in this WP:OUTBOX. Also, this infobox is very arbitrary. Why should "Occupation", "Books", "Television" and "Net worth" all be incorporated into The Trump Organization? Surely his wealth doesn't come solely from his businesses. And even if it does, this seems more like general biographical data than position-related data. Also, how is he known only for Trump Tower and Mar-a-lago? What about the Chicago and LV hotels? This is really arbitrary, and I believe things like books and notable businesses shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's best to keep it as simple and concise as possible. This just seems excessive to me. κατάσταση 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would have been more useful to omit the example. As I see it, a consensus in this RfC to include the TTO section would not represent a consensus for all of the details in the example. If we approached it as all-or-nothing, as "the section is set in stone until there is a new RfC consensus", I think it's obvious that no consensus would be possible, as there would be far too many permutations. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There's currently no consensus for the Outbox or the addition of Trump's organization. Why are these things being constantly added to the article. Ramming stuff into the article (over & over) doesn't get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The purpose of fields in the info-box is to provide key information. So a key piece of information for Barack Obama is that he is president of the U.S. But what is the Trump Organization? It's the company owned by Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support I started this section to address the objections against adding the Trump Organization as an "office". The format used here does not use the word "office" nor imply that it is one. It describes Trump's position at his company, while at the same time giving the emphasis that was also needed to highlight the importance of Trump's business career in the infobox. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support As I previously stated, it is benefical to the article as a whole and neatly details Trump's former occupation before becoming President. Archer Rafferty (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only is this completely uncommon to everybody but Trump, but it's also incredible unappealing visually to include in the infobox. It looks too similar to the office holder infobox, as Katastasi pointed out. This is very arbitrary, does not add any relevant information to the infobox, and just doesn't make any sense to add it. RedBear2040 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It looks visually appealing to me. Moreover, the subject is "known for Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago", whereas he's not so well known - at least, not to me - for his "hotels in Chicago or Las Vegas". --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary clutter. Naue7 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per my arguments in the prior RfC on this topic. Trump is not a typical politician, so we shouldn't feel constrained by the limitations of {{Infobox officeholder}}. His business career is a significant part of his biography, and plays a large part in his rise to the presidency. His leadership of The Trump Organization must be displayed prominently on the infobox. Edge3 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, Trump's business career (wealth) and tv/book/etc exposure (fame) are not merely key events in his pre-2016 life, they explain how he became POTUS. Infobox is supposed to summarize the key points, and if template-syntax or wiki-precedent at other articles prevents that, WP:IAR demands we use a workaround-syntax (at least until the templates can be upgraded to accommodate what this article needs) to give the readership the best data that we possibly can for *this* unique article. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is all covered in the "Donald Trump series" below the infobox. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• oppose until someone here can explain what his corporate structure is. He seems to be CEO or general partner to hundreds of Trump related companies, which often own each other. It is not so straightforward as CEO of Trump Organization. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just a bunch of random info that looks unappealing for the future POTUS.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support. When we first decided to use the WP:OUTBOX method, this specific part of the box was in the final draft. Trump has been the chair of this organization for nearly 45 years, and it needs to be known easily without diving into the article that he led the organization before being elected 45th President. As a comparison, see Ronald Reagan's info box, which lists him as president of the screen actors guild. If differentiation between "a political office" and "a business position" is so important, then just colorize the background to distinguish it. The info box is almost always the first thing that catches a reader's eye on a biography. If the problem is that it "takes too much space", all we need to do is trim down the information in it. Regardless, the position should stay. Presidents of the United States should have VERY detailed info boxes. In my opinion, not only does it aesthetically enhance the article, but I think adding it is a net gain to the efficiency of conveying important information to a reader. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Outbox, Strong support for including Trump Organization in infobox officeholder. I haven't gone through the full extent of the discussions on this matter, but my impulse is to simply use the apparatus that we know best and has worked best (officeholder) and just add this major part of the man's life to it. I don't think a casual reader is so aware that "officeholder" predominantly refers to political offices, and I think the notion that they will mistake the Trump Organization for being one simply based on his term dates being referred to as "in office" is frankly ridiculous. They are not stupid. His lack of prior public experience is woven into almost every election-related article and can be easily included in the lede prose alongside the infobox itself. It's also a link itself, should they have never heard of it and desire more information. I don't think hanging up on the word "office" requires all this bending over backwards with colors and section splitting to hand-hold a few readers in an abundance of caution. Bend the rules just a tiny bit for the incoming POUTS (like so, so many American political articles have done differently from most other nation's politicians' pages over the years, and in more extreme ways) and just add it to officeholder. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Update I just want to say that if we fail to reach a consensus on adding this section to the infobox, it would be best to use the officeholder infobox again since it would be pointless to continue to use WP:OUTBOX without the special purpose of adding this specific section. Trump's TTO chairmanship would be listed under "occupation" as it was before. I'm sure everybody here would agree? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Update #2 - Closing this discussion There hasn't been a whole lot of activity these past few days on this thread. So far there are 10 editors supporting this change and 8 opposing, with both sides putting out very good arguments. The last comment supporting/opposing was posted 5 days ago, and I am beginning to feel like whatever editors needed to say about this edit has been said. Because both sides supporting/opposing are a relatively close split of 10 to 8, there really isn't a wide enough consensus to implement this edit without conflict. I've decided that I should close this discussion soon, and if anyone disagrees and think that I should keep the discussion open longer, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I will be closing this thread by tomorrow. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01: I'm all for closing the thread and moving on, but you don't say what you conclude from the discussion. Would you simply revert to statu quo ante? I'm afraid this would only beg for a prompt re-ignition of the issue. We should at least attempt to draw some conclusion from the various comments made here. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does seem that the status quo will remain, since there are too many editors opposing or supporting to draw a conclusion leaning any one way. We con't conclude that Trump's TTO leadership shouldn't be shown prominently on the infobox because so many editors supported this edit, but on the other hand, there are too many opposing to reach a tangible consensus to make this change. Both sides made good arguments about why it should or shouldn't be added; the support side made a good point in that Trump's leadership at TTO is a very important detail of his overall business/political career, and using WP:OUTBOX avoids conflicts with guidelines, while the opposing argued that the section still looked too much like an office (I also find the proposed solution of changing the coloring of the section unappealing) and that it could potentially include arbitrary information which will make the section too "cluttered". I feel that if there must be a conclusion, it would be that the Trump Organization info should remain under "occupation" in the personal details section of the infobox, and that shouldn't be changed until a new consensus is reached. It's a good compromise that both mentions Trump's career at his company in the infobox, but also doesn't make it seem like an office. Plenty of articles about CEOs use this format. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is the status quo ante. The status quo is close enough to that that no reverting would be needed, unless one wanted to say that the infobox should have remained static while this RfC was in progress, which seems a bit severe even to a process freak like me. Anyway I'm ok with early close or the full 30. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

An Rfc has a lifespan of 1 month, which means this Rfc will expire around February 4. By that time, Trump will be US President & thus readers/inputers will possibly look at this topic differently. Best to allow the Rfc to run its course. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. I wouldn't mind leaving this discussion open if that's what people think. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also happy to let the process run its course, especially as we can expect a fresh influx of participants due to the audience peak undoubtedly coming up around the inauguration event. However I would restore the standard {{Infobox officeholder}} format at this point, rather than the harder-too-maintain outbox. We can easily apply the minor changes between the pre-RfC version and the current one. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should remain open. We've been debating various proposals on the infobox for well over a month, and I think we've come a long way towards achieving consensus. Edge3 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Idea? Perhaps this is an odd idea, but what about maybe putting business as a second infobox below the office box? That includes the information, and imposes a clear visual split from the office box. Alsee (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on the condition the second infobox be put under the "business career" portion of his page. RedBear2040 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary clutter. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

I haven't checked the recent history of this article, but whoever is continuing to add extra info the infobox, would they PLEASE STOP IT. Leave the infobox relatively the same as those of the US Presidents bios from Washington to Obama & the US Vice Presidents bios from Adams to Biden & soon Pence. PS - I suspect that WP:RECENTISM is behind these attempts at original designs to this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Non mea culpa, but forming a lasting consensus is more important to me than what happens to the infobox in the interim. I generally favor the concept of status quo ante, but it can get extremely difficult to decide what that is. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency can be an albatross. Partly for the sake of 'consistency' we make no mention of FDR's 3rd and 4th election-campaigns in his lede-paragraphs (per JFG research above on this talkpage), yet perhaps the most unique and important factoid about FDR is that he was POTUS four times (FDR's decision to run in 1940 was arguably the most important single political campaign-decision of the 1900s). Similarly, for the sake of 'consistency' we make no mention of Reagan's acting career in his infobox, though without that name-recognition and fame, it seems completely implausible that Reagan could ever have become the governor of California (let alone the head of the SAG union), and from there, POTUS. Rather than seek consistency-of-format, aka ever infobox_officeholder being the same and looking the same for all the presidency-biographies, it is far more important to seek consistency-of-purpose. Guideline says, "to summarize... key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ...wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." What are the key facts about Trump's life? That he became POTUS is #1 with a bullet, surely. But his billions made in real estate are #2, because without largely self-funding his way through the primaries, #1 would not have happened. His brand-promotion work in television/books/tabloids is #3, because without his celebrity and his knack for earned media coverage, far more than all his rivals in both major parties and all third parties, once again Trump would probably never have become POTUS. Thus, for consistency-of-purpose, which is to say in order to summarize the key facts in shorthand, we need the infobox to say that Trump is POTUS-elect, that he is a billionaire real estate developer, and that he has done a lot of Trump-brand-promotion over the decades in tv/book/news publications which made him a celebrity. Famous + rich = potus, those are the three key factoids that the infobox needs to cover. For the sake of 'consistency' with our other articles, we can also say that Trump attended U.Penn, but that is a very minor aspect of his life methinks. On that same basis, I would not support adding "small business owner and rancher and wood-salesman" to the GWB infoxbox, because that is not why he became POTUS, he was nominated then elected mostly on his name and fundraising-network (much as Jeb was not nominated thanks to that same name and despite that same fundraising netowrk). Bloomberg article does need to mention his billions on Wall Street, they are key factors in his success as a politician in New York, just as Hillary Clinton's success as a politician in New York was due to her political-backstory more than any other factor. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well said. +1 — JFG ^talk 01:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What to include/exclude

Chairman and President of The Trump Organization
Occupation	Real estate developer
Years active	1971–present
Preceded by	Fred Trump
Known for	Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago
Website	trump.com

For those opposing, the inclusion of what is perceived to be arbitrary information in the proposed infobox section such as "Occupation", "Books", "Television" and "Net worth", as pointed out by Katastasi, is a major point of concern. I think that "occupation" is necessary to specify that Trump is in the real-estate business as chairman of TTO, but I am willing to leave out "Books", "Television", and "Net worth" since I do agree that it does not directly connect with Trump's post at his company. Hopefully this will ease concerns of having a "cluttered" infobox section. As Mandruss pointed out, this RfC is on whether to add this infobox section or not; the details of what info to include can be decided later. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the trimming. Net worth should remain in the "personal" section of the box. Books are in the {{Donald Trump series}} sidebar just below, so no need to repeat them here. TV activity at The Apprentice is a large part of his life, so I feel it deserves a place in the infobox, although that is not related to his real estate business, so must be elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All of this information is something that should be included in the personal section of the infobox or not at all. "Occupation," "years active," and "website" should all be in the personal section already, and "preceded by" should only be included if it's an office or something comparable. As far as "known for" goes, I believe it's safe to say that now he's most known for being the incoming President of the United States. To put that he's known for Trump Tower would be like saying Ronald Reagan is known for his role in Bedtime for Bonzo or that George W. Bush is known for owning part of the Texas Ranger. It is an important part of his life, but it will now be overshadowed permanently by his service as Commander in Chief. The issue essentially boils down to the fact that, even though his infobox technically isn't an officeholder infobox, including "Chairman and President of The Trump Organization" in the infobox under what will soon say "45th President of the United States" looks like an office position, and the fact that current proposition is not visually appealing because it is extremely cluttered with information that would be best suited for later in the actual article. His career as a businessman is an important part of his life. That goes without saying. However, history will remember him, for better or for worse, as the 45th President of the United States. RedBear2040 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

this RfC is on whether to add this infobox section or not; the details of what info to include can be decided later. - In that case, why are we discussing it in this RfC? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to let the editors opposing it know that the example I showed of the TTO infobox section isn't by any means the final result. There were concerns that it looked "cluttered" and that it included "arbitrary information", so I just wanted to let people know that the section can be improved by adding/removing certain parts. It might get more editors to support. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The way to get more editors to support is to state that they can ignore the actual contents of the example box, that that is not within the scope of the RfC. Not to open a discussion subsection about said contents. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks better. True, the RfC is about the section, not the details, but perhaps the details should be taken into consideration as well. Regardless, I'm still against including the section at all, but trimming it is a viable option. κατάσταση 03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In drafting the 'business career' portion of the proposed outbox, I mostly followed the content of Template:Donald_Trump_series, which mentions his

• businessCareer + CEO + realEstate*31 + otherBiz*4 + legalAffairs, for a subtotal of 38 bluelinks
• politicalPositions + presidency*8 + campaigning*7, for a subtotal of 16 bluelinks
• eponyms + television*3 + books*3, for a subtotal of 7 bluelinks
• family + foundation + sexlife, for a subtotal of 3 bluelinks

My goal was to concentrate on the key ideas, the examplars (art of the deal + apprentice + trump tower) in the various subgroups. I did not break out golfcourses separately from his other real estate, however, though the template does. I don't much care what exact specifics we end up with in the infobox, but I would like the infobox to reflect the lede-sentence which is currently causing so much consternation: American billionaire real estate developer, television celebrity, ('author' maybe also included though it seems unlikely), and POTUS-elect (plus optionally also 'politician' though for the infobox we can ignore that redundancy). I don't care about the exact phrasing, as much as I care about summarizing the three key points: wealth + fame + potus. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia's/Putin's involvement should be mentioned in the lead

At this point, it's clear that the lead should mention the fact that Putin ordered an influence campaign to get Trump elected, as US intelligence reports have officially concluded

• US intelligence report: Vladimir Putin worked to get Donald Trump elected, The Guardian
• Intel report: Putin directly ordered effort to influence election, CNN
• Putin Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, The New York Times
• US election hacking: Putin 'sought to help' Trump, BBC
• Putin Ordered 'Influence Campaign' To Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Report Says, NPR
• Putin 'Sought to Help' Trump Win US Vote, Says Intelligence Report, Newsweek
• Declassified report: Putin ordered election interference to help Trump, The Hill
• Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump, The Washington Post
• Intel report says Putin ordered campaign to influence US election, Fox News
• Report: Putin, Russia Tried to Help Trump By 'Discrediting' Clinton, NBC News
• Intelligence Agencies Say Russia Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ to Aid Donald Trump in Election, Wall Street Journal
• U.S. intelligence report says Putin targeted presidential election to 'harm' Hillary Clinton's chances: Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an aggressive “influence campaign” that ultimately aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House, LA Times
• Putin Ordered Hacking to Help Trump Get Elected, U.S. Intel Report Says, Haaretz

The controversy over this matter is massive (and probably more extensive than any other topic related to Trump after the election), and its relevance/impact is clear. --Tataral (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No. This story is due in the 2016 election page, in Russia–United States relations and in the various leaks pages (DNC, Podesta, Wikileaks), not in Trump's bio. — JFG ^talk 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not here. Somewhere in his campaign article. Definitely in the articles mentioned by JFG. Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No, anything that could be in any perceived to be negative to Trump must be hidden away. No matter that a foreign government interfering with a U.S. election and the beneficiary of that interference berates his intelligence agencies rather than the perpetrators would be a hugely significant aspect of anyone's biography, we shall hide it! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the 24/7 discussions about Trump's alleged sexual assault cases or how we hamfisted Hillary winning the popular vote into the lead of everything. Be reasonable, one thing getting denied isn't the end of the world. Archer Rafferty (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for U.S. intelligence and can only describe their conclusions as they are described in reliable sources. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence has not concluded that the Russians had any influence on the outcome of the election, only that they intended to. TFD (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All of those reliable sources immediately above are obviously not truthy enough to serve as RS in a Trump article, and the U.S. intelligence service concluding that the Russians intended to bigly boost Trump's chances of election by hacking U.S. political targets but he doesn't think the intelligence services are correct or that it's serious should obviously not be in the article dealing with the C-in-C of the U.S. military. Stands to reason. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: The sources are fine, the target article is not. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree Russian involvement is extremely historically significant and should be mentioned. Casprings (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree His Russian ties and potential conflicts are probably the most important recent developments about him as a president elect. Daaxix (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN has a new article about the 10 things intel agrees. One of them is not that they wanted Trump. One of them was them they wanted to destabilize democracy and make a mockery of elections. It could be that they hate both of them but were happy when they beat the pollsters, who predicted a Hillary win.

WP should take a stance like CNN and not make up conclusions not proven. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Absolutely not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this is a BLP, not an article on the election. In the lede? Ridiculous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is where it belongs: 2016 United States election interference by Russia Our rules here require that a summation of that article are included in this main Donald Trump article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is his Bio article, so seems the wrong place to mention this topic. Certainly not sufficient importance in his life or sufficient association to suit WP:LEAD level appearance. There's apparently an article specific to it and that article might be reasonably mentioned in the article about the election. Although it appears after the election is over, so perhaps in the election articles See Also section. Markbassett (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Election summary in the lede

Please read both versions of this edit, intended for the lede, and indicate in the survey which of the two you believe best conveys the outcome of the election. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent.

2.

In the November 8, 2016, general election, Trump won a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes, while Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with fewer votes nationwide.

3.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service.

Adding a third option which strives to take into account all objections in the "Rephrasing" discussion above. — JFG ^talk 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Election summary in the lede

• Support #1 or #3 but would advise changing in #1 the last instance of "of the national popular vote" to "popular support" "the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent" to "the fifth president elected with less popular support than his opponent". Option #2 has several problems, including that the terms "nationwide vote" and "votes nationwide" confusingly describe both the electoral and popular votes, so I oppose option #2.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing to Support #3 only, in the interest of achieving consensus sooner rather than later. Version 3 will suffice, even though it omits the info about how many times (five) this has happened before.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #1 and disagree with the suggestion above; I think the existing wording "of the national popular vote" is better than the vague weasel term "popular support" (which could mean anything, even polling results). I do think it is good to mention both the lack of a majority of the popular vote for either candidate, and the fact that she got more/he got less (whichever way it is put), and #1 does both. I Oppose #2 for two reasons: it uses the word "plurality," which most people opposed, and the wording " the fifth elected with fewer votes nationwide" is unclear/confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I still prefer #1, but #3 is also OK. I prefer to say "the fifth president who", The "fifth president" is in the text of the article, so I am OK with omitting it from the lede if that is consensus. I don't much like the phrase "fewer ballots" although I recognize it as an attempt to avoid saying "popular vote" twice. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changing to Support #3 in the interest of achieving consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2. Hillary did win a plurality of the popular vote. The problem with #1 is that it states, "neither candidate won the majority of votes." This seems misleading, and could be misinterpreted as not winning more popular votes. Using the term 'Plurality" solves the problem. True, she didn't win a big majority, but she won more than Trump, and reliable sources take note of that. In addition, #2 does mention Trump won the Electoral College . This coupled with Hillary's plurality seems to perfectly describe the outcome of the election. More people voted for Hillary while Trump won more states. This is an important distinction as Trump is only the 5th person to win the presidency with fewer popular votes. Added: Also, calling Hillary an opponent diminishes the fact that she won her presidential candidacy. Candidate Clinton; not Opponent Clinton. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 as the best effort towards accommodating the remarks of all participants so far. No footnotes, no parentheses, no repeats, doesn't minimize Trump's victory, gives an honest account of the lack of plurality without using that technical word, and the prose is short and fluid. The "fifth president" factoid is well-covered in the linked article, doesn't add much value here. — JFG ^talk 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support current version - I think the current version [22] is best. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #1 - #2's "plurality" kills it for me; it wastes words stating the obvious (Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes); and other significant problems.
  #3 fails to provide historical context (fifth) for the popular vote outcome; I concur with MelanieN's comments re "ballots"; and I think "U.S." can be reasonably inferred by the reader.
  Strongly oppose substituting "popular support" for "popular vote", per MelanieN. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2, the only option that does not attempt to obfuscate the most important facts about the election: Trump lost the plurality of the vote and only won as a result of the USA’s antiquated and anti-democratic Electoral College created to sustain the USA's former anti-democratic and racist slavery system. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  You win the prize for the most blatantly POV argument to date in this RfC. He who does not recognize his own bias sees bias in neutrality. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  The most significant indicator of neutrality on Wikipedia is to receive personal attacks from POV-pusher Mandruss, nothing drives him crazy like hearing the truth told from a neutral point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Wrong accusation, Gouncbeatduke, please quit the aspersions. In my experience, Mandruss edits in a very balanced way and is always courteous. Your rant about the electoral college voting system being somehow linked to slavery is totally irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Like Grayson Allen, you be trip'n. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 clear and concise, neutrally worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 - Provides all details from a neutral point of view. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3. Providing both that he received fewer votes than Clinton, and that he received historically few votes, seems like overkill for the lead section. I also think "plurality" is slightly inaccessible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2. The only wording that is encyclopedic and neutral. Especially #3 clearly falsifies information, and is worded in a way that just confuses readers about the word "majority". --Tataral (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm, what information is falsified in #3? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What info do you feel to be falsified in #3?I would not mind a bit of explanation!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 - Best of the options, describing the events from a neutral point of view and just the format suited for lead. Strongest oppose to #2.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3. Suggest: revise "Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton" to "Trump got fewer votes than Clinton" for simpler wording.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3. Also support simplifying "garnered fewer ballots" per CuriousMind01 above. 'Ballots' is ambiguous meaning either an entire voting session (we'll hold a ballot) or (I presume meaning here) individual votes. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #2 Seems to be the most comprehensive explanation; #3 would leave readers without a detailed knowledge of the electoral system wondering how Trump won. Number 57 17:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all options that mention a nonexistent "national popular vote". There was no national popular vote; only 50 state popular votes. You can't simply add up the state popular votes to find out what a national popular vote would have been if that were the system used, because in that case voter turnout would probably have been lower in swing states and higher in other states. That's because in the current system, voters have less incentive to vote in "safe states" and more incentive to vote in "battleground" states, and this affects turnout. Campaign strategy also would have been significantly affected. We cannot deduce or reasonably estimate what the result of a "national popular vote" would have been, based purely on the state popular votes. jej1997 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all options. The status quo is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 Seems the most clear and neutral. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Clear and neutral? How is that even possible with incoherent sentences like Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots nationwide? Seriously? It does not convey any of the facts with any understanding. It muddies the water. It's the absolute worst possible choice. It reads like someone filling up their blue book with BS hoping the excess word count will "garner them points" with the professor. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3, but change "Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton" to "Trump got fewer votes than Clinton" per CuriousMind01. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 in the interest of bringing this to an end with enough of a lopsided vote to avoid a reopening. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This "lopsided vote" appears to be the result of off-wiki canvassing. How many of these editors have a bot notice on their talk page? How many have a history of editing here? I find it highly unusual that an edit like this is drawing so much attention. They vote and then mention that the sentence, which is illiterate, must be changed. This is fake. We are not putting this idiot sentence into this article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Don't get paranoid: many people watch this talk page, and all RfCs tend to attract a lot of participants, without any canvassing involved. You decided to open this particular RfC, so why not just let it run its course now? — JFG ^talk 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: It is not paranoia to state the obvious. You had multiple opportunities to present a well-crafted sentence that included the key facts but you did not because you refused to allow any mention of Hillary Clinton in the same sentence..SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what you are talking about: there is nothing "obvious" about canvassing here. Hillary Clinton is mentioned and I did my best to incorporate as many suggestions from as many people as I could, yours included. This process culminated in the "C5" variant which I then placed into the RfC as option 3. The rest is being decided by !voters. — JFG ^talk 20:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's being decided by canvassing. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot notices are not the only way to become aware of an RfC like this. As JFG said, many editors watch this page; it currently has 1,634 watchers. And the RfC is listed in three categories, also high visibility. Your canvassing reasoning is highly flawed, and it never adds strength to an argument to repeat it over and over. Please refrain from making accusations like that without far stronger evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious. It's an idiotic sentence that even it's supporters are saying needs to be changed. They were canvassed. Plain and simple and this RfC will not close properly because it's littered with canvassing. And you're right bot notices are not the only way. Email apparently works better. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 Provides WP:NPOV. However, we should also consider adding one sentence concerning possible Russian interference in the election as this is historically significant.Casprings (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We could mention all that, but then we'd need to mention Hillary's and the DNC's emails as the source of the interference, and the FBI debacle. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. If #2 then change "a plurality of the nationwide vote" to "more votes nationwide". Plurality probably isn't a well known term. If #3 then change "garnered fewer ballots" to "received fewer votes". Garnering ballots is unnecessary linguistic flourish. Aside from those tweaks, the three versions are similar and similarly acceptable. Alsee (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - status quo option preferred. These all seem pretty close, so not really seeing much of a choice or mention of whats up -- it just seems to presume it's down to A/B ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Election summary in the lede

Opening an RfC at this stage in the consensus-building process underway above does not look helpful, as it throws us into 30 days of further discussion and reduces editor choice to two variants. I believe this should be shut down by the nominator. — JFG ^talk 23:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC in the middle of discussion is not helpful and should be shut down - preferably withdrawn by the proposer. I also think the two choices offered are not representative of the actual discussion. That is likely to wind up with a proliferation of other suggestions and the RfC will dissolve in chaos. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not in the middle of a discussion. It's going nowhere. On something like this, fresh eyes by other editors can only help. This is currently being discussed by only a small number of editors who can't seem to reach consensus. Hence, an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think we were on the verge of achieving consensus for your version #1, which is the product of input by multiple people. We may find out by the responses to this RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just be be extra-clear, I support #1 even if the last instance of "of the national popular vote" is not changed to "popular support". Melanie prefers not to change it, whereas JFG disliked saying "national popular vote" twice in this paragraph even though it's legally irrelevant and sounds kind of redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And I support #1 even if the wording change proposed by Anything is chosen. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked my suggestion so it would change "the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent" to "the fifth president elected with less popular support than his opponent". Hopefully, that will attract popular and/or electoral support from both User:JFG and User:MelanieN?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think this "fifth" (or "fourth") factoid needs to be included: the relevant historical details are in the linked article. — JFG ^talk 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, your C2 and C3 already mention that he got less of the popular vote, so your only objection seems to be the words "the fifth president who". I don't care one way or the other, and don't think that's a big issue is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct, we were very close to consensus indeed. Taking into account your latest remarks, I have now offered version C5 as option #3 in this RfC. Here's hoping we can converge on that one. — JFG ^talk 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not holding my breath. 😁 If this RFC gets no consensus, then the current version remains, which seems okay except for some people's dislike of the word "plurality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:MOS note: In all three of these proposals, if they go into the article, "Donald Trump" should be changed to "Trump" and "Hillary Clinton" should be changed to "Clinton". --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  As of now, the Clinton reference would be the first in the article, so I think "Hillary" stays. But "Donald" does need to go per WP:SURNAME. I think it should simply be changed in place here without ugly strikethrough; the changes are unlikely to affect existing !votes or discussion. I'll boldly make those changes. Also adding commas after two 2016s, same rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re #3. It has some issues. If this is the option getting consensus, well, it needs editing. (Issues: "victory" seems redundant to "won" ["Trump won ... in a ... surprise victory" seems redundant, but maybe not!?]; "earned" is ambiguous ["Neither earned" ~= "Neither deserved"]; "garnered" [Pretentious. Never knew Trump gardened. :O ]; "U.S. president" [Trying too hard to vary expressions introduces ambiguity. The first was "votes" varied with "ballots". {Ballots are votes. Varying the language once is moderate & OK.} The second is "the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president" {Hm? is "U.S. president" somehow different from "person assuming the presidency"? No. But varying back-to-back is too much. Negative return on investment.}]) p.s. I know neither time nor appetite to resolve these before implementation. Fine. But neither do I want to be accused of violating consensus if/when I attempt to copyedit these issues out of the implemented result. Ok, IHTS (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Final (?) tweaks

The discussion has been open for 5 days. I do think we should keep it open for at least a week, as kind of a minimum opportunity for all interested parties to contribute. But in the meantime, #3 is strongly in the lead (10 !votes for #3, 3 for #2, 1 for #1, 1 for "current version). Several people have suggested tweaks in the wording of #3. Can we work those out here, so that #3 is ready to go into the article when this is closed? This should involve only tweaks to the wording of proposal #3, not additions or removals or anything that changes the meaning. If you want substantive changes, do not propose them here. I'll copy #3 here. If you have a specific proposal, please put it below, as "change AAAA to BBBB". JFG, you have been really good at incorporating discussion into actual versions; do you want to give it one more go?

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service.

--MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It needs to stay open longer. The bot only delivered the notice to talk pages yesterday, Jan 12. There's always a delay with the bot and the whole point of the RfC is to get comment from the wider community. And #3 seems to have curiously similar comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that. There certainly does need to be time for people to respond. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

For me, the "in a surprise victory" part shouldn't be included per WP:NPOV. The rest is fine. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 20:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a substantive change, not a wording tweak. Actually all three versions proposed in this RfC say "surprise"; I think that was as a result of earlier discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My only tweak is that I don't care for "garnered fewer ballots". Can we re-word this? --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people may have been surprised, others may not have been. It's a clear-cut POV. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 20:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Clinton was the clear overall favorite. IIRC, NYT's complex mathematical model gave her an 83% chance on the morning of Election Day. Whether individuals were surprised is not the point, and that is not what the phrase conveys here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't it be RS'd that most (people & pundits) were surprised!? IHTS (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd argue that a more common wording in the sources is that Trump's victory was an upset, using the sports metaphor. Most political races are handicapped (in the Vegas sense although betting on potus-outcome is only legal in foreign countries), just like championship sporting events, and when the person expected (by pundits) to be the underdog, ends up winning the most points (or electoral college votes), then the situation is called an upset, or redundantly, a surprise upset. The metaphor is appropriate, because none of the pundits predicted 100% probability of Clinton victory, but many of them predicted between 3:1 and 50:1 chances of a Clinton victory, which are pretty long odds from a betting standpoint. I would say we could nix the 'surprise' verbiage and rewrite to say 'upset' instead, with a wikilink thereto. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now ("surprise upset" = redundant; ). Good eye. --IHTS (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Upset" is good, and the wikilink is helpful because it describes exactly this situation. "Surprise" or "upset" is not POV; it is what virtually all sources said the next day (many added something like "stunning" for even more emphasis). This was because the pre-election polling had been so strongly in favor of Clinton. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My ce suggestions:

• "victory against" → "upset over". (To elim possible redundancy "Trump won [...] in a victory".)
  • "a surprise victory against" → "an upset over". (Borrowed from above.) --IHTS (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• "earned" → "received". (Because both were largely disliked, "earned" could be misinterpreted.)
• "and Trump garnered fewer ballots" → "with Trump receiving fewer votes". (The point is to contrast the candidates' various vote totals, which is highlighted better if the language stays consistent, rather than intentionally varying for "style".)
• "U.S. president" → "president". ("U.S." is implied by "the presidency" which occurs earlier.) Or "U.S. president" could possibly even be omitted. ("U.S. president" is possibly implied by "person to assume the presidency" which occurs earlier.)

IHTS (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all excellent suggestions, support. Though I would possibly prefer 'upset victory' rather than 'upset over' depending on if we can eliminate the later use of victory? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean "Trump won [...] in an upset victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton."? (But isn't "won [...] in a [...] victory" still somewhat redundant?) --IHTS (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions and I support them. We might consider inserting "total" for greater clarity: "and Trump received fewer total votes than Clinton nationwide" or "with Trump receiving fewer total votes than Clinton nationwide." However I don't insist on this and it may not be necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

But aren't "total" and "nationwide" somewhat redundant? (What is diff between "fewer total votes nationwide" and "fewer votes nationwide"?) --IHTS (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Seems superfluous. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is trending support for #3 but the process needs to run its course. Perhaps not the full 30 days if consensus is clear, but at least a week. And yes, there are some reasonable change suggestions floating around, but it would be bad form to incorporate them before the RfC is closed. Given the extreme sensitivity of editors on any minute detail, any further change should be discussed after one of the three versions on the table is adopted. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why there is 'trending support' for #3. It is not clear and concise. It does not effectively convey information at all. It muddies the water. These are the indisputable facts: Donald Trump won a surprise victory. He won the Electoral College vote. Hillary won the popular vote. Trump is only the 5th president elected who did not win the popular vote. He did not have prior military or governmental service before his win. Words like "garnered more votes," sounds like marbles in the mouth. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why either; it just happened to be the most favoured option among those presented, at the time MelanieN and I commented. Might take a while to get consensus, and further discussion may still be required. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You "don't know why" because you prefer a different choice. (In fact, you prefer the choice you wrote.) Consensus rules here. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous and virtually never is. We don't have consensus yet, because this hasn't been open long enough. But we do have a trend. At this point the trend is: one !vote for #1; four for #2; fourteen for #3; one for "none of the above: and two for "current version" (meaning what is in the article now). --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's actually not my choice. I crafted that with bits from others. I would never say "nationwide vote,", etc. And I don't like 'plurality' but it's in the RS. But JFG's choice is incoherent. All the facts should be listed especially as to who won what. Otherwise, we are going to have reverts from every random driving by. It needs to be a solid edit. If everybody would get off their sacred opinion and work towards a consensus, we would not have needed an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No blind trust

Should the article mention Trump's position on putting his business in a blind trust? [23] SW3 5DL (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any information on that? I think he has just tossed out the term "blind trust" a few times; has he now provided any details about what he is going to do? (Most people think that his proposed plan to have his sons run the business is not in any sense a blind trust.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The only way this should be in the article is if it is in a section detailing the many things Trump has said he would do but hasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Has he yet explained what he is going to do about his business? During the campaign he said he would explain in December. In December he said he would explain in January. If he has, I missed it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, he did bring it up at his press conference. It may take some untangling to figure out exactly what he said - aside from the fact that his two oldest sons will run the business, while he and Ivanka resign all roles. He will continue to have a financial stake in the business (a stake which has never been defined; I think it is possible that he is the SOLE owner since it is all reported through his personal tax returns.) [24] I'll do some more research and see what we can say. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, no blind trust. The advisor (I didn't catch her name) explained why--he can't "unknow" that he owns Trump Tower, for example. I watched it live on PBS's youtube channel.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, not a blind trust, just a trust. I think I have a decent paragraph which I will add to The Trump Organization as well as here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM discussion about trusts — JFG talk 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MelanieN, as I understand it, the distinction between a blind trust and something that is just-a-trust, is that one can examine the accounting books of the latter, AND discuss those books with the trustees. Refs mentioned in a moment definitely say that Trump is not setting up a truly-blind-trust, but that he is restricting his books-access (overall P&L only) and his discussions (pledges not to talk business), in addition to relinquishing legal control over operations to Eric and DonaldJr. As pointed out by Zigzig20s above, it is possible to have his assets in what is a blind trust in the literal sense -- accounting books kept by an independent firm which is legally prohibited from allowing Trump personally or any of his staff/connections/etc from seeing the detailed contents thereof -- and yet Trump, with his decades in the real estate business, likely still having a decent idea of how the overall real estate market in NYC is doing just from watching the stock market and whatnot. Some pundits have been saying that Trump should *sell* all his assets, illiquid real estate mostly, to some non-family third party, but this is a catch-22: forced quick sales of high-value assets tend to go at firesale prices (hurting Trump's net worth and his brand-reputation), and simultaneously no matter WHO bought each property Trump would be accused of getting an over-valued deal (helping his net worth but hurting his potus-reputation). So to avoid that double-trap, Trump is NOT selling/divesting the major real estate properties, just relinquishing control over and most knowledge of bookkeeping-details via trust-vehicle#1, whereas trust vehicle#2 has his liquid assets (cash/stocks/similar) which the sources don't say much about but which might be an actual blind trust? Newspaper which mentions some of that,[25] plus other interesting details -- Trump hotels will turn over profits from foreign governments staying at them, to the federal Treasury department. It also said there would be a new ethics advisor, which this ref says will have the title of Chief Compliance Officer.[26] Both that ref, and this one,[27] talk about Trump returning to the business at some point (but I think they are missing the forest for the trees... even if Trump never returned he would still be the beneficiary of the trust). And since his immediate family members will be involved with the business, there are also some kinds of broad non-verbal communication (e.g. Eric Trump shows up at thanksgiving in a new limo with fancy clothes versus Eric Trump shows up after riding the subway with just the t-shirt on his back type of thing) that will inherently clue Trump into how well his holdings are doing on the market, in a general sense at least. USNews ref from before says kids are not "truly independent" trustees, for short. I saw one ref characterize this kind of somewhat-blind-trust situation as a one-eye-open-one-eye-closed type of half-blind trust, back on November 11th however,[28] and wikipedia currently mentions the phrase at Presidential transition of Donald Trump. The newly-inserted-as-of-2016 subsection on 'qualified blind trusts' at the blind trust article, is another phrasing. CBS cannot resist making the obvious build-a-wall metaphorical comparison,[29] about the semi-blind-trust versus the southern border. CBS also mentions that CFO Allen Weisselberg will also be involved, though unclear whether as a trustee like the two kids or as an advisor to them as trustees. And CBS makes the comparison to the conflict-of-interest concerns during the four months of VP Nelson_Rockefeller#confirmation hearings in 1974, where he was opposed by repubs like Barry Goldwater as too liberal, AND by some dems as too rich. Like Trump, Rockefeller also ended up NOT use a truly blind trust. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC) A blind trust is basically impossible for someone like Trump. As his lawyer pointed out, he DOES know what he owns, and selling it all or giving it to his children is not practical or even really possible. So we will call it what he calls it: a trust. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I agree, we should call it a trust. It is legally a trust, as the lawyer explained. Trump owns or is involved in 500 companies. He is not like the usual candidate who owns stock. They sell the stock and put the money in a blind trust for investing that the president has no contact or knowledge of the trades. That is not at all the case with Trump. To sell of his companies would destroy his business and that is not at all required by the Ethics Office, at least as I read it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC) My understanding is that there will be both a blind trust vehicle (for generic stocks/cash/liquidAssets), and also a 'constrained' trust vehicle (for major real estate holdings). So for the sake of accuracy, in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, or wherever the gory details are covered, wikipedia should be clear that Trump is creating a blind trust but that it will only hold a tiny portion of his net worth, the rest going to a standard trust controlled by two of his kids and the Trump.com CFO with the advice of a newly-created compliance officer role. Here in *this* article we can just say 'Trump created a trust' or something slightly simplistic, but I suggest we have a footnote saying that technically he created two, and wikilink to the proper place... speaking of which, where is the proper place? I don't seen anything about trusts, blind or otherwise, over at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Is that stuff not being covered therein? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I don’t think it makes any sense to use the term “blind trust” at all if this is the case. If all the important assets are not in a blind trust, but a tiny portion of assets are; it’s misleading to claim there exists a blind trust. Reductio ad absurdum, you could put $1 in a blind trust and claim you have set up a blind trust for part of your assets. Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC) That IP User above seems to have a God understanding of trusts. While it is easy for us regular users to like big words, like trusts, we should let experts speak and study their ideas first. Is a formal trust, like a Donald Trump Trust UA 1/18/2017 M Rosenfeld E Trump Ttes, being formed? Including retitling of assets? Unfortunately, the press often gets this (and medical stories) wrong because of lack of reporter knowledge. Let's here it from the IP and experts. Samswik (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Blackmail allegations

Buzzfeed ran an article containing a document that alleges (Redacted). This has been picked up by a number of other sources, such as Cosmopolitan. How long should we wait, and what level of reliable source should we require, to cover these allegations? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just don't. WP:BLP restraint and all that… — JFG ^talk 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of deleting this suggestion and revdel'ing it. It's a massive BLP violation unless it is extremely well sourced - and in a search I didn't find anything approaching a Reliable Source. (And I hate to think what kind of advertising Google is going to show me because I searched this...) --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a rerun of the Jane Doe issue. But the NY Times has mentioned it:[30]--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

...and the Times (without going into details) describes the allegations as unverified and defamatory. 'Nuff said. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It goes into enough details if you read it closely.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's front page is ny times and Washington post. Some key facts that should be included, including that the FBI sought a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign, but were denied until October. This is extremely significant.Casprings (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the specific allegations might be UNDUE per BLP, but the general story is all over the sources. [31], [32], [33], [34]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The general story (without the specifics) has been added to the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia#January 2017 classified document briefing. That seems an appropriate place for it. IMO it would be UNDUE to put it in this biographical article, unless it becomes a WHOLE lot bigger story than a lot of other stuff we have left out. We do need to keep in mind this is a BLP article, not a news stream about everything related to him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Too soon, not enough corroboration. These are make allegations and most news outlets are treating them as rumors at the moment. Wait until we get solid, unequivocal confirmation. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI Donald Trump "compromised" claims has been created. I originally tagged it as G10 when it was under another name that was about the claims not mentioned in RS. It's since been moved the the G10 contested by an editor other than the creator. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't add anything about this until we get a very reliable source. A golden source, like the NYT or Washington Post.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: Oh, so you mean these two? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: come now. NYT uses "unsubstantiated" in its title and WaPo uses "unconfirmed" in its title. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I don't mean to say that we should include them because of these articles, just- it's a bit humorous that he asks for certain sources that were already linked. Possibly I wrote things poorly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the allegations that aren't in those sources, that Trump was told "Do what we say, or you're in trouble"That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We are going to have stories about Donald Trump every day for the next 4 to 8 years, assuming he lasts that long in the presidency. We have to determine significance otherwise the article will be unwieldy. TFD (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will the trickles become a flood? Is there dirty linen to be aired? Will this be a permanent stain on the presidency? These questions will not be answered in the twinkling of an eye.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that the whole Russia thing – not just this most recent information, but also Russia's interference in the election – needs to be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD ("The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president due to the odd political system of his country, his ties to Russia, Russia's election interference has completely dominated the conversation. Russia is the single most important thing that can be said about him after the election. --Tataral (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president". Some basic education for you: The Presidency is not "appointed" it is won; Trump won the election the only way it can/could be won (i.e. "Road to 270"); national popular vote is an interesting fact but beyond that has no bearing, it also cannot be "won"/"lost" since it is not a race/competition. IHTS (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You completely failed to address the point in my comment, namely Russia. Domestic idiosyncrasies in Trump's country simply don't count in an international context, and a claim that he "won" the election is certainly not true. --Tataral (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

News for you: not "claim" it's fact. And your "international perspective" has no place in the article or this Talk. IHTS (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess the impression is that something stinks. Do we ignore the fact that the Emperor has wet his pants?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Hey, it seems he owns a hotel at Niagara Falls.That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC) But what exactly flows from that?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC) These edits should probably be deleted. Besides I hate puns. Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Agree on the former, disagree on the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If Trump had won the election as a result of Russian actions then it would belong in the lead. Instead, U.S. intelligence have a medium to high confidence that the Russians attempted to influence the election. Something that even if true had no effect on his election does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason this is being treated as a big/new story is not that the information supposedly influenced the election; I don't see that in the reporting. It's the concern that if Russia really does have damaging information about Trump, they could use it for blackmail or extortion - basically to influence Trump's actions as president. Also, I don't think anyone has suggested putting it in the lede. The question is whether to put it in the article at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Tataral suggested putting something in the lede, and I concur. The question is how to phrase it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not really a narrow question of whether Russia succeeded in influencing the election. First of all, the "Russia" issue is much broader than that and also includes Trump's attitude to Russia, a sworn enemy of his own country, and his strange, cozy relationship with Putin. It also includes among other things Russia's cyber warfare and disinformation campaign against the US, which have now resulted in new, extensive sanctions against Russia by the US government. And now this most recent controversy over blackmail. And a number of other things. For Wikipedia's purposes, the key issue is that "Russia" has dominated the conversation in connection with Trump since the election; therefore "Russia" needs to be mentioned in the lead somehow, due to being a prominent controversy (or multiple related controversies) judging by its coverage in reliable sources. Even if Russia had no influence on the election at all (highly unlikely), the coverage of the issue in reliable sources would still be a highly prominent controversy; for us here at Wikipedia, the question is not whether it's "true" (original research/analysis), but how and to which extent it is covered by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Not significant enough to include in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the topic. MelanieN, the blackmail is another story. Originally it was that the Russians hacked into the DNC to get the dirt on Trump so that they could understand him if he became president. We would have to show that it is important enough to put into the lead and it is rare for that to happen. We have to see whether it has traction or fades as the next story emerges. TFD (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial) to gather any information they could use to mess with the election. But I saw another report (not suggesting it go into the article, just for clarity) that the Russians have been collecting information on Trump for years - to use, not in case he became president (who expected THAT?), but to use in business dealings with him. Some of the rumored-not-mentioned stuff they supposedly have is several years old. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial)... please be accurate and precise, MelanieN. Are you talking about agents of the Russian intelligence services, or are you talking about cracking-groups located in the landmass of Russia somewheres, who may or may not be 'linked' informally to governmental agencies? Are you talking about the high-level Trump campaign staffers and high-level RNC staffers, or are you talking about some Republican-party-leaning bloggers and some state-level campaign staffers? There is also the distinction between the intent to gather information for unspecified purposes (cracking groups) and an alleged intent to gather information to mess with the election for geopolitical purposes (intel agencies). Please see [35] which has a good overview of the nuances here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As for the other matter, yes, I would be shocked if the major intelligence agencies were NOT collecting data on billionaires, simply for economic reasons. See for instance the Economic Espionage Act making it a felony in 1996. Forbes and Fortune also pay close attention, not to mention tabloids & paparazzi. (And the alleged clairvoyants![36]) But collecting economic data is different from collecting blackmail material, in some ways, although like the mafia, one can always blackmail to impact economic negotiations or to extract economic concessions, I guess. Not being a major national intelligence agency myself, hard to say. Are there sources you can point me towards, I am having little luck with my keyword searches? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russia issue (which includes, but which is not limited to, the Russian election interference which even has its own stand-alone article) is clearly more than significant enough to be included in the lead. In fact, it's required to be included in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Tataral (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Looks like your interpretation of WP policies is as fluent as your interpretation of US electoral laws. — JFG ^talk 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Since we allegedly need consensus now

Would you agree that the addition made at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=759481551&oldid=759472321 was reasonable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, too. But doubtless someone will be along shortly to open an RfC... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Unverified, unverifiable, the report contains numerous easily observable factual errors, and every reputable source is keeping it at arms length. Even the ones that love to blame Russia for everything know that this doesn't smell right. Wikipedia should not be including unverified and defamatory information about living people, especially not in one of the most highly trafficked pages on the entire project. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That proposed edit was reasonable. It did not include any of the stuff Russia supposedly has on him, just the existence of the addendum. But we haven't gotten consensus here to say anything about it. The fact that there was this additional briefing is receiving massive attention today in spite of all the other news there is (cabinet nominee hearings, Obama's farewell speech, etc.) I say we give it 48 hours. Trump will undoubtedly be asked about it repeatedly in today's press conference, so it will still be news tomorrow. If the existence of these allegations is still big news Friday we should probably mention it - along with the denials from Trump and from Russia. For now I think the existing mention at 2016 United States election interference by Russia is enough for this encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should remain. "In January 2017, Trump was briefed on as yet unproven allegations that Russia had "potentially compromising personal and financial information" about him." That is fact and there are abundant very RS which confirm it. Whether the allegations are true or false is totally irrelevant to the inclusion of that sentence. It is whether we delve into the allegations that is currently debatable, not this. Restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is reasonable and should be restored. It would be better if it was edited to include who gave the briefing (leaders in the Intel community). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, give it 48 hours. WP:NOTNEWS and all. We could be having a scandal a day for the next four years for all we know, and not every one of them would merit inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I’m nearly always in favor of waiting a couple days before adding new, controversial info. This is no exception. OTOH, I wouldn’t argue against including some, careful, earlier mention in articles specifically about the election or Russia-U.S. relations. Objective3000 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I Oppose its inclusion. It's POV-pushing gossip meant to discredit him, and he's denied it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The supposed details of what Russia has are actually worse than gossip; they are BLP violations and I revdel'ed them when they were mentioned here. The fact that there was an amendment to the Russia report, saying there are reports that Russia has some bad stuff about Trump, is not gossip - and if you think that amendment to the report is "meant to discredit him" then you have a shockingly poor opinion of the professionalism of our intelligence organizations. In any case, I agree it should not be included yet - not until it demonstrates that it is more than just a passing news sensation. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual." and "The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. " (Goldman, Adam; Rosenberg, Matthew; Shane, Scott (January 10, 2017). "Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him". The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2017.) Zigzig20s (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

At least 48 hours. I wouldn't see the urgency even then, aside from the avoidance of uninformed accusations of suppression. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think this edit was mostly fine, needs some copyediting but doesn't get into anything salacious that could be false. The 4chan rumor is bunk, though. I don't object to waiting 48 hours to make sure it's fleshed out appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, wait 48 hours. This is evolving, not to mention Trump said in his press conference that he wondered about the leaking. The briefing was for him and Obama by the chiefs. Trump said he thought the leaks could be coming from his organization because it is so large, so he told no one he was having a briefing, not even his executive assistant. Then comes the leak. I think that might be worth a mention. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The above edit was perfectly fine. We can expect that some editors will vehemently oppose *ANY* mention of this situation in the lede, no matter how notable it is. I'm also unclear on what the "leak" is suppose to be. The media has had access to this report for months, since June at least. McCain got it and gave it to FBI in December. Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read the quote from The New York Times above?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• The edit was absolutely appropriate, accurate, and important to include. This is all over the news and people will be looking here for answers. To completely ignore it makes it seem like the article is out of date. We aren't reporting it as fact here, we are reporting that other third party new sources (the only thing we should care about) are reporting on it. People saying "there could be a scandal every day" are speculating. If that becomes the case we can consider what things we want to remove at that time. To preemptively suggest that we may have a lot more information to add to his page, so we shouldn't add it to his page now, is ridiculous. VegaDark (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We should not add gossip to Wikipedia. Let's get serious. Unless you want to add the direct quote from The New York Times above in the body of the text, to spell it o.u.t. that this is malarkey?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not "gossip" that every major news agency in the world is now reporting that "In January 2017, Trump was briefed by U.S. intelligence agencies on as yet unproven allegations that Russia had 'potentially compromising personal and financial information' about him." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with a 48-hour hold to let the details settle, but it seems almost certain that this must be included in some form. The narrative crafted by the Trump team is that nothing has been corroborated, but the BBC now says there are more sources. Also, news outlets and Wikipedia had no qualms about giving coverage to uncorroborated material from WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton, so let's not have a double standard here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The details of the allegations are going mainstream. Just yesterday I saw a headline reading "Meryl Streep Takes Aim at Trump"! --Pete (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pete, please do not drag Wikipedia into the gutter!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than 48 hours and this story is still a big thing, so that excuse is gone. To clarify, the proposed edit simply entails putting in a single sentence stating that Trump was briefed on the as yet unverified allegations, with no details of said allegations, and that trump has denied them. The consensus seems rather clear, but I would just like to make sure that I have read it right. Does the edit linked at the start of this section seem reasonable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is time for a sentence in the "transition" section. The edit linked above is fine. There is a lot more that could be said, but not in this biography. It is being said in great detail in the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have went ahead and added Twitbookspacetube's edit, since the consensus was for a 48 hour hold, and that has passed. If anyone feels like we need more discussion or consensus here, please feel free to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, all of the major, international, RS have been reporting on the Russia issue for 2 weeks now. It needs to be at least mentioned in the lede. Daaxix (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Guys - I'll suggest let BIO be BIOgones and this seems just WP:OFFTOPIC for the article. This article supposedly Trumps' bio, the major things about HIM and his life, not a dumping ground about every story that has Trump in it, coverage of his hairdo, etcetera and latest thing having to go into the lead. Please put this one towards the article specifically about it, or mention in the election article, and let this one focus more on biography things like his birth, early childhood, career, marriages, children and so forth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump: "You are fake news"

Worth to mention? http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-gibt-pressekonferenz-ihr-seid-fake-news-a-1129595.html Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See also http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory Twitbookspacetube (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Trivial fingerpointing as the press tries to find a compass in a haystack of needles while blindfolded. --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This would be more useful in an article about Donald Trump's relationship to the press and media. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:3D1F:3BB7:60F9:F5C2 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This incident came up over at the fake news website article, as well. The problem is that we don't currently have a solid article on the neologism of 'fake news' as a metaphor (distinct from 'fake news website' the clickbait-scam), just a disambiguation page, so we could not come to a consensus on where this altercation-with-CNN tidbit belongs. As far as the biography of Donald Trump goes though, it is definitely just one side-comment in yet another altercation with a journalist amongst many, and does not really belong in this article. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

While amusing, doubt it would pass WP:10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an article of the history of Donald Trump's relationship with the media might be appropriate, it is notable in itself. The concept of him as illegitimate has been repeated in the public discourse - I'd support as long as the notable people who made the accusations are included NimbleNavigator (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "occupation"

Re [37] and [38]

Since I see this error a lot in infoboxes, I think it's worth a bit of discussion. Consistency with incorrectness does not benefit the encyclopedia.

The Merriam-Webster entry for "occupation" is here. You will note that none of the senses refer to a title or specific position. The most applicable sense is 1b: "the principal business of one's life: vocation". The associated example is: "Teaching was her occupation", not "Geography teacher at Pleasantville Elementary School was her occupation".

If a businessman holds two business positions, we don't say that he has two occupations.

See Ben Bradlee for correct usage. Note that his occupation is shown as "newspaper editor", not "Editor of the Washington Post".

If anyone disagrees, I would very much like to hear their reasoning.

In Trump's infobox, I don't strongly object to showing specific positions after the occupation, in parentheses, as per status quo, although my preference would be to omit that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that occupation==vocation. If layout-space is at a premium, suggest that we do something with wikilinks like this:

• Occupation: real estate developer, television personality, author

That is 'misleading' since any elementary school children amongst the readership who literally have no idea what the english phrase 'real estate developer' means will be sent to the incorrect article. And there are also plenty of people who are international readers, and might not have English as a first language, that this technique could confuse. But I do think it would be better than saying "occupation: real estate developer (The Trump Organization), etc" and far less grammatically grating than saying "occupation: CEO of The Trump Organization, etc" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I care more about WP:EGG than you do, as those would be clear violations of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Current formulation looks like a good compromise between conciseness and clarity. I was guilty of an Easter-egg formulation earlier. — JFG ^talk 22:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyway it appears we have agreement on the definition of the word. I don't plan to add an entry to the consensuses list, as we don't need a consensus to observe the dictionary. Put differently, the dictionary entry represents a community consensus, that community being the English-speaking world. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Pied Piper

"n part due to his fame, Trump's run for president received an unprecedented amount of unpaid coverage from the media that elevated his standing in the Republican primaries."

We should absolutely mention clinton's pied piper strategy that absolutely backfired here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:5489:3299:A6D1:A822 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If we use alleged, hacked e-mails as a reliable source for the internals of the Clinton campaign, then, seems to me, we must also use the leaked, alleged Trump dossier as a reliable source for Trump’s activities. Or not. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The number of trump supporters using the "BUT SHILLARY GUIZ!!1!" argument is simply pathetic. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a false equivalency. No one is really denying the validity of the emails, while many have questioned the dossier. Btw I am not commenting on if one or the other are reliable sources. More stating that if one is reliable, that does not make the other reliable as well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't know whether the e-mails are original and complete, and don't know the context. We do not know that there was an active "Pied Piper strategy". A Google search doesn't find the needed, respected news sources. Objective3000 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In reguards to the "Pied Piper" stratage, several reliable sources imply the email was valid Salon and Politico for example. What they actually did to act on it I do not see right now. But I'm not sure if they acted is the point of mentioning it, more that they had a plan for it. As for the rest of the emails The Daily Beast says "The vast majority were genuine", for what its worth. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Important not to violate WP:Original Research if the emails are used. Also, a source preferably more upstanding than The Daily Beast should be found, if possible. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

False edit summary (section moved up)

See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved back down. It doesn't belong in an RfC. See WP:TPG.- MrX 13:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether the word "false" is taken out of context from the sources

This edit summary is false: "No need for this and it's not a direct quote anyway; it is an editor's parsing of the article that seems intended to cast doubt on the content." Of course it's a direct quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If User:MrX is not interested in whether this was a direct quote (it absolutely was), then I will simply restore it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than I thought. Not only is it not a single direct quote, it's actually the entire first sentence of the fifth paragraph, with ellipses added to make it look like the sentence continues, followed by the entire sixth paragraph. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton is introduced as if to say "well, Trump tells some falsehoods, but so does Hillary". Trump's telling of many falsehoods is referenced to several sources, not just PolitiFact. There is no legitimate reason to include these two excerpts from this one source in the citation template. The only reason I can fathom for including it would be to lead readers to a different conclusion than represented by the consensus text already in the lead.- MrX 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that I was quoting directly from the cited source. And you admit that the cited source says "there's some context that's necessary here". But you, a Wikipedia editor, disagree with the reliable source that any context is necessary here. To which all I can say is that we're supposed to follow reliable sources rather than the contrary opinions of Wikipedia editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this sounds like user-talk argumentation about behavior, thus far, can I please request that Anythingyouwant and MrX post "please change XXX to YYY" type of information, which explicitly says what the content-dispute is about? Consensus version from December, change proposed by Anythingyouwant, change-if-different-from-December-consensus proposed by MrX. Perhaps I am too lazy to click the links provided, plus, I think that having some prose-options might help guide discussion into a more-fruitful pathway? Thank you 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

An existing footnote in the lead says this: Cillizza, Chris. "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false", The Washington Post (July 1, 2016). I am suggesting to include a quote at the end of the footnote: "Now, there's some context that's necessary here....Trump has been fact-checked 38 more times than Clinton. And, yes, PolitiFact was the one deciding what statements to fact check. This is not a comprehensive guide to the relative truthfulness of every word uttered by Trump or Clinton in this campaign. But, the number of times his statements have been ruled 'false' or 'pants on fire' is still substantially higher than it is for her."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with clarifying the totality of what the writer in fact said. Especially in a rarely-read citation |quote=. That would seem more consistent with NPOV; we are not required to stick to an anti-Trump narrative here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no need to include a quote about Clinton in a citation template when the referenced article text rightfully makes no mention of Clinton. Whether Clinton has made false statements is completely irrelevant to the documented fact that Trump has made false statements many times, and continues to do so.- MrX 14:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  Using the same logic, Trump supporters would exclude the same comments from Hillary Clinton because they refer to Trump. And in fact that WaPo piece is not cited in Clinton's article. If not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, what Wikipedia article is about both people and therefore a legitimate place for that quote? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  We are on the verge of mentioning in the lead of this article (not in a footnote) that Clinton got less than a majority of the vote. Including similar context in a footnote, when reliable sources say it's "necessary here", is not problematic at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  The lead sentence in question is currently under RfC above. Option #3 seems to me the only neutral one, the only one that tells the whole story, but it's fairly clear it's not going to reach consensus. So neutrality in this area may be a lost cause unless someone cares to take the question to a higher court, whatever that would be. I'm not that guy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  Mandruss, my understanding is that the RFC is about the wording "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" rather than about the footnotes. But, if you like, we can follow the suggestion of User:MelanieN who said, "The footnotes issue can be dealt with after that RfC is resolved".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend recently to abuse the quote attribute of the citation template, and this would seem to me to be another example. It should only be used to provide relevant context, and this seems like an expansion of that. I agree with MrX on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the cited source when it says "there's some context that's necessary here"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I do indeed disagree, because the "context" that Cillizza was adding was totally unnecessary. Trump was fact checked more often than Clinton because he made more statements than Clinton and lied more often. That's just Cillizza adding his 2 cents because he's an opinion columnist, and it isn't germane to the material that was being added. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump was fact checked more often than Clinton because he made more statements than Clinton and lied more often. - To factcheck him more often on the premise that he lied more often would be highly circular, and I doubt anyone could do that and be taken halfway seriously. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The URL for that Cillizza article says "news", see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/ If it is not news, then I suggest we remove it from the lead, which would still leave two footnoted news articles. But I doubt we should treat the Cillizza piece differently from what the URL says it is. Moreover, WaPo identifies Cillizza as a "reporter".[39]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the quote is accurate and the reference is reliable, I don't see any need to include this quote in the reference citation, and I certainly don't see any need to make a big battle over it. In general I think the use of quotes in reference citations is overdone. In fact it often seems to be done for argumentative purposes ("see? This is what I am trying to prove"); I would prefer to see reference quotes used only when necessary for clarity. That's a general comment; I am not implying anything about the particular case here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, if the quote is accurate and the reference is reliable, then I assume you agree that the source says (accurately and reliably) that "there's some context that's necessary here". So it would seem irresponsible for us to omit the context completely in the lead. I agree that quotes in footnotes should be the exception rather than the rule, but here the only alternative would be to place the necessary context in the text of the lead itself, which would be preferable to the status quo but perhaps objectionable to other editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is one out of three citations to a sentence in the lede. Just because Cilizza thought "some context" was necessary for his full-length article, doesn't mean it is necessary for our purposes. But I'm not going to get deep into the weeds here. My feeling is that there is no need for this and it's not worth fighting for. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like to rely on the first two refs, we can do that. We do not have to take the third ref out of context. Accordingly, I plan on removing the third ref.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't. Just because you can't get consensus for adding two-quotes-in-one to a footnote, that does not clear the way for you to remove the entire citation. - MrX 21:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to remove this reference. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Obviously, this source is not a reliable source for a factoid stripped of context that the source itself says is "context that's necessary here". If the ellipsis is what's causing a problem, I'm glad to quote without an ellipsis. Editors here seem oblivious to the problem with omitting context that the source says is "necessary". That is a major no-no anywhere in any Wikipedia article, not to mention in the lead where we have the most controversial sentence of a high-profile BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Leave it be. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rarely have I seen a headline (cite title) that was so far removed from what the writer said. It's clear enough that Cillizza didn't write the headline. The quote simply attempts to provide balance and clarity, at the same level of visibility as the headline. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The official portrait of the President-elect is out.

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.

---

File:Donald Trump Presidential portrait.jpg

Given that it's black and white and low-resolution, and likely not the official Presidential portrait, should we wait until the official one/a high-quality color portrait comes out? MB298 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, goody! It's not bad. I'm fine with it being used, for now at least. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We did say that we would wait for an official portrait, but really? Black and white, scowling? This is worse than any of the dozen or more portraits we have considered, and much worse than the one currently in the article. I concur that we should wait for his PRESIDENTIAL portrait, instead of this one as president elect. Surely the White House will come up with something better! --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to the man, he is 70. Still, I agree it may be better to wait for the Presidential one. I don't mind either way, though. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If these people still find objections based on personal opinion of the subject's appearance (once the official portrait is released) I swear... Note that this was provided by the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee, to accompany the Inauguration invitation. I just now extracted the original from the PDF. I recall something similar being done in 2009, when Obama and Biden were given portraits just for that purpose, but Pete Souza provided Obama's official portrait on January 14, 2009. Calibrador (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

He looks better in B&W. But, if I ever again respond to a discussion on DJT images, please take me to ANI and TBan me. Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a given that, even if we spent the next 2 weeks deciding to use this photo, it would be replaced by the presidential photo when it comes out—without discussion. Hardly worth any perceived improvement in the interim, which would be almost entirely subjective as always. I share Objective3000's sentiment; the whole point of the RfC and the one before it was to close this time sink. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I would not support a change right now, but personally, I prefer this photo to the one currently in the article, minus the fact that it is B&W, for I don't see a change in consensus. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, I don't think this is the intent of the word "official" in the RfC. The words "White House" were used by five !voters, with zero !voters saying anything about "other" official photos that might precede the White House photo. The fact that the words "White House" didn't make it into the close statement is the only reason this thread can't be collapsed like all the other out-of-process threads before it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to support using the President-elect′s official government portrait in the President-elect′s official Wikipedia infobox. MB298 observed that it's "black and white and low resolution". Ironically, so is every presidential portrait on every item of US currency in circulation. (Indeed, the image almost looks suitable for engraving.) This is what the President-elect has given us; at the very least, it should be included for archival purposes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 03:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What on earth does U.S. currency have to do with Wikipedia infobox photos??? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

They're both supposed to be "official", correct? And wasn't that the point of the RfC? This is the subject's official portrait photo; it's the subject's only official portrait photo. It can be added immediately; and it can be restored immediately. (What's not to like about that?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

See my above comment beginning, "As a procedural matter". And what's obviously good to you will not be so obviously good to others, I hope we've learned that much in the Donald Trump Infobox Photo Saga. It is not so obviously good to me, for example. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Where did I say it's looks "good"? All the matters is whether it's official. Not how it looks. The point of the RfC: use the official presidential photo for the presidential article. Analogically, use the official president-elect photo for the president-elect article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 16:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well if we're playing "Where Did I Say", where did I say that you said it looks good? I said you said it is good (second half of the contraction "what's"). The point of the RfC: use the official presidential photo for the Donald Trump article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was to wait for the official presidential photo. No more arguments!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: Thinking about it, a scowl is exactly the pose Donald Trump would choose for his official portrait, no? It perfectly describes everything. That said, I bet they colorize it before it's "official". This must be a draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. I have read that he consciously models his facial expression on the Clint Eastwood scowl. That will be an interesting change from the usual official portrait. Remember all the people insisting that whatever portrait we used must feature "a flag and a smile"? That might not be what he's looking for. As far as this portrait goes, if people want to use it that's OK with me. I hope they are prepared for the onslaught of "why are you using such a terrible photo, you are obviously trying to make him look bad, why do you hate him?!?!?" that will erupt when they do. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FDR didn't smile either. — JFG ^talk 09:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ————→

That onslaught is not OK with me; since it is inevitable as you say, the photo is not OK with me. This is what process is for. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the cover of Time when he was a candidate back 2015. They mentioned that no matter how many shots they took, this was how he always looked. I don't think it's a scowl. It seems to be how he poses. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Muboshgu, MelanieN, and SW3 5DL about the 'Eastwoodesque' look. But I don't feel like it's our job to tell Trump whether this is or isn't his official portrait: He's saying (by implication) that it is, not that it isn't! It can accordingly be added (and if need be, restored) per RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no RfC that has reached that consensus, and no amount of convoluted reasoning will conjure one out of thin air. The consensus is for a White House photo. If anyone felt that a non-White House official photo should suffice, they had their chance to say so in the last RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Double agree, but do think that this b&w photo belongs in the appropriate subsection of Presidential transition of Donald Trump. But not here in the biography, and definitely not in the infobox. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Triple agree.. Let's not go through the photo bit again. It was decided to wait for the official photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait for the White House official photo of Trump. PS- A black & white photo in 2017? I don't think so. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Much as I think this hilariously bad black and white image is all kinds of awesome, I agree that this article should wait for the official portrait that will doubtless come very shortly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Agree it is so bad it's awesome. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the sourcing

I'm agreeing this isn't the 'official portrait', but am wondering what it is and where it is from.

First, I notice it's related to the senate.gov, not whitehouse.gov or NARA as yet and not 'official' position portrait because he's not yet official. It's also not greatagain.gov or shareamerica.gov which would seem the more likely / authoritative sources for the president-elect camp. The senate website is about the inauguration process, and the image seems a photoshopped side item for the website from prior imagery. (At least when I do a yahoo search it seems to show a prior color image without a background of summertime whitehouse and flag in the background. So -- anyone know what the root image is from ?

Second, I'm noticing the filename is odd and not the one on their main page. The senate site shows a very similar but slightly different image here when you scroll down on their home page. So what webpage has this photo ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Official program for the inauguration released by the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee: http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Entire%20Program.pdf Calibrador (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Calibrador - No, that's where the apparently Photoshop of a previously-existing image was published ... but where is the original photo from ? I'm thinking it isn't from any of the debates and doesn't look like a campaign image so ... just do not know the source. (p.s. possible copyright issue there too, if the senate got a limited usage license on the image.)

In colour

See here : it's probably not the definitive official portrait, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be in accord that we want the official presidential one. That one goes to all agencies and governmental offices. It's in the public domain. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a legit official portrait; we can't speculate whether it's the "definitive" one. Added it to the article. — JFG ^talk 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Phew!! Thanks. Linguist^talk|contribs 15:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's official, then I agree. I like it very much. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Now I suggest we immediately close this discussion in preparation for archiving. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2017 (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.

Followup to closure of the "portrait" discussion

Don't agree with the sudden insertion of the new image & the quick closure of the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the insertion and closure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO this was handled out of process (hey, here's a color version! wham! bam! inserted and closed! 19 minutes elapsed from start to finish!) but it will hopefully be only for a few days - until we get his actual, formal portrait from the White House. Meanwhile, suggestions are needed for how to deal with the "why did you use such an ugly picture of Trump?" comments that are likely to follow. At least they will be fewer than if we had used the black-and-white picture. Maybe we could just say that he LIKES being portrayed squinting and scowling. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, official photos almost always take precedence over unofficial ones, and of course the question of which crop of the official photo to use remains open (see survey below). So, I'm still okay with the closure of the discussion above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The response to "Why did you use such an ugly picture of Trump?" is as follows: "Per existing consensus. [The consensus is not 'Use the official White House portrait unless some editors find it ugly.'] You are free to start a new RfC per WP:CCC, if you are prepared to take some heat for wasting further editor time on the infobox photo, and provided you understand that we may reach a consensus to abort the RfC for that reason." In my view nothing further should be said outside of RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just glad we have a professional and official photo. Once there is an official White House photo of him as President and not President-elect (like Obama's current infobox image), there shouldn't be a problem with replacing it. CatcherStorm ^talk 15:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Children in Infobox

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.

---

The infobox lists Trump's children as: "5, including: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Tiffany Trump". This immediately raises the question "Which one's missing?". Template:Infobox person/doc says that children's names should be included "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant" and that "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable", so the guidelines seem to indicate that young Barron Trump, who doesn't have his own article, shouldn't be included. But I think this a case where WP:IAR comes into play. The omission of Barron is distracting, so the inclusion of his name improves the article. He is high profile and hardly an unknown figure, so I don't think the privacy reasoning applies. And whilst he doesn't have his own article, Barron does have his own subsection, so arguably the clause about notability doesn't apply either. I propose that the "5, including:" is removed from the infobox and "Barron Trump" is added. What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Barron should be included. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, rather than saying "Children: five including #1 #2 #3 #4" it makes far more sense to say "Children: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Downside of omission exceeds that of inclusion. In one week he will be a son of the leader of the free world, I don't think there is any expectation of privacy as to his name. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Malia and Sasha are linked in Obama's article, even though they don't have separate articles, so I see no reason why this should be different. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. Several prior discussions here and at family templates concluded that Barron's name should be mentioned, precisely to avoid such questions as "who's missing?" and constant edit wars on the issue. At the same time, an independent article on Barron Trump was rejected at AfD, with a consensus to redirect to his section on the Trump family article. I believe this gives us a mandate to include his name in the infobox and have it redirect to said section (and the link Barron Trump already does that). — JFG ^talk 09:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree le hacker extraordinaire should be included, per WP:IAR and convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Barron Trump should be listed, but without a wikilink. I agree that he is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the infobox, but not notable enough to have his own article. Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Edge3: Sorry, I don't understand the rationale. Is it written somewhere that he can't be wikilinked using his redirect unless he is notable enough for his own article, in which case it wouldn't be a redirect? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh... interesting question. At first, I thought that the redirect would be redundant with Trump family, which is also linked to by the infobox. I just realized that Barron Trump's article redirects to Family of Donald Trump, which is a different article. I have no personal opinion on which method is preferred, but I do note that Obama's article has wikilcnks for his two daughters, which in turn redirect to Family of Barack Obama. Edge3 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would care to revert this, which I can't do per 1RR. It's my understanding that the "doesn't have his own article and isn't likely to warrant one anytime soon if at all" rationale applies to redlinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was about to oblige but I think that SNUGGUMS's rationale to remove the link deserves consideration. Let's discuss. — JFG ^talk 16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Should Barron's name be linked?

Support

1. Support link for clarity and stability. The redirect does an appropriate job of showing whichever content we have about him on the family page. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
2. A link gives the reader easy access to the content we have about Barron Trump. That's kind of the point of the encyclopedia, easy access to information. If it "misleads" the reader into believing that the little Trump has his own article, I can live with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Yes, the redirect should be linked. There is no reason to leave him out just because he doesn't have an article. He doesn't have an article, but he DOES have information at the linked site. The setup without a link - saying "Trump has five children" and listing four of them - is just weird. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
4. This is fairly common. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. No reason not to put in a link - it'll be blue and direct to a subsection. Bazonka (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Opppse linking as it gives the misleading impression that he has his own page (which he doesn't). If a subject isn't likely to have or warrant their own page anytime soon, then we shouldn't have a link suggesting otherwise. As I noted in my edit summary when I unlinked Barron, there isn't much (if any) chance of him having or warranting his own page anytime soon if at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does that matter? He has his own subsection in an article, so he's not completely non-notable. Bazonka (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment

For what it is worth their is a draft for his own article at Draft:Barron Trump. If he becomes worthy of his own article this can be published into the mainspace. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This option is not under discussion: a recent AfD was closed as redirect, and the target page has minimal contents, which are appropriate about a 10-year-old. — JFG ^talk 16:45, 15 January 2017 (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.

Lede sentence

We had a long discussion above about how the lede sentence should be worded, and we are very close to consensus, but we haven't quite nailed it down - possibly because the discussion is so far up the page it is getting overlooked. I don't want to start a new thread at the bottom of the page, because there was a great deal of valuable discussion that led to the near-consensus that we have. Seeing that it is so close to inauguration day, I have proposed we leave the current lede as it is, and agree on what we want it to say when he is inaugurated. That gives us a week. Please chime in at that discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Let's wrap this up. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

it is not close to consensus. Just read the section. Only thing close to consensus is American, Donald Trump, and date of birth. Discussion needs to be better summarized by someone, not inaccurately as above.Samswik (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always stated (and will again) keep the lead as simple as possible. Just use the leads of the other US Presidents bios as guidelines. PS - Yes, let's wait until after the inauguration, as the lead content will naturally change on that date. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a preference between the two options listed above? --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I oppose all three of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexist language was overlooked but fixed. Former businessperson. Samswik (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Failed to cite a policy or guideline, and it complicates current discussion of the sentence in which we are trying hard to reach a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Is everyone, really, ignoring all the criticism on Trump out there?

Why isn't there a section on criticism of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Because criticism is supposed to be incorporated into the sections about what he has said or done that attracted criticism. There is no criticism section in Adolph Hitler either, why don't you ask about that? TFD (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It's important to not lend undue weight to that particular aspect; the article must be balanced and neutral. Also, this article is a biography of a living person; inappropriate unsourced or poorly sourced content is construed broadly. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism is included throughout the article in the ideal sections, just not in a single section titled "Criticism". There are also many sub-articles that address his controversies and criticism. κατάσταση 21:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What everyone else just said.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump and professional wrestling

I came here to browse one of the RFCs, notice of which was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. While I may comment eventually, two other things came to mind. First off, the "Professional wrestling" section states "He has hosted two WrestleMania events in the Trump Plaza", with "Trump Plaza" linking to Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. Those events (WM IV and V) actually took place at Boardwalk Hall, which they called "Trump Plaza" strictly for storyline purposes. Secondly, I've seen a pattern of edits come across my watchlist regarding not only Trump but Linda McMahon over many months in a number of articles. These edits, mostly deletionist in nature, suggest that we don't need to mention their professional wrestling careers and political careers in the same breath, irrespective of the existence of high-quality media sources which do precisely that. I believe this is due to the pro wrestling project, where most members push the POV that their favored cherry-picked list of sources are the only valid sources to use on those articles (in other words, in this universe, the NYT and WaPo aren't reliable sources as far as they're concerned). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: Thanks for your note about Boardwalk Hall, I have amended the article accordingly. I can't comment on your sourcing notes, but I would encourage you to raise the issue at the relevant article talk pages or at WP:RSN. — JFG ^talk 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Illegitimate president comment

Should be included. Samswik (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samswik: please specify. Are you referring to John Lewis calling him an illegitimate president? MB298 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been added to John Lewis (Georgia politician) where it belongs. Objective3000 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be at the Lewis article. WP:FART is going to need an addition about tweets involving presidents pretty soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 on WP:FART — JFG ^talk 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the US Constitution, Trump doesn't require Lewis' blessing in order to become President. That aside, Lewis' comment shouldn't be added to this article. As already mentioned, it's correctly placed in Lewis' bio article. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support inclusion - No...it is a living person's issue. It is documented and notable enough to be added here. We are not here to legitimize or disgrace a subject but this criticism should be added to this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As WP editors we're supposed to use our heads (what's worthy of inclusion, what's not). Let's see ... The DNC leaves themselves open to hacking, and their emails get made public. So tell me, after that occurred, one thing Trump could've/should've done different, in order to escape your need to register criticism now, in his BLP. (Should he have called off the election!? Say what?!) --IHTS (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And tell me too, how the DNC's deliberate edging out of Bernie Sanders, did not delegitimize Hillary's candidacy, and how that criticism shouldn't be included about her candidacy in her BLP. --IHTS (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If you can show a non-WP:FRINGE level of support for Lewis's viewpoint, I think it should be included in one of the Trump sub-articles. His comments alone hardly show that. This article is already bloated and it can't be used as a repository for every controversy surrounding Donald Trump. There are guaranteed to be many of those for the next 4 years, as the man is a magnet for controversy, and we simply don't have the space. Obviously if there emerged a remotely viable movement to invalidate the election results (is that even possible under the law?), it would belong in this article; otherwise it's pointless politically-motivated chatter little different from birtherism. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I would argue Trump himself has made the comment notable, because he retaliated by attacking the black civil rights leader on MLK Day weekend and drew criticism from just about every decent human being in the nation, including wall-to-wall coverage on cable news and the Sunday papers. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I beg to disagree. When an otherwise respectable person such as Mr. Lewis says something stupid, undermining the very democracy that got him elected, who are we to excuse him and give credence to his unsubstantiated feelings? Or is he a Putin puppet as well? — JFG ^talk 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The problem here is that you think Congressman Lewis said something stupid, when in fact he absolutely did not. He is only saying what most Americans feel, which is that Trump's presidency is forever tainted by the influence of Russia and Comey. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it's just a feeling. Facts are stubborn and Trump was elected legitimately, with or without the help of Russian propaganda. It's been ironic to see the forceful denial of the election outcome coming from the same people who insisted that Trump should abide by the results. By calling Trump illegitimate, Lewis discredits the US electoral process, and although I'm not American, I do call that stupid. — JFG ^talk 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: If the result of the election was flipped because of the influence of Russia and Comey, which seems absolutely to be the case, then Trump wasn't elected legitimately and the electoral process is obviously broken. And I'm not American either. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey, those are big ifs. Let's leave it at that. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So why was *Hillary's* candidadacy illegitimate? (Most Americans know the DNC deep-six'd Bernie Sanders' chances, sent violent protestors to Trump rallies, that she breached national security then lied about it, so on.) --IHTS (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lewis' remarks belong on Lewis' article. Trump is an attention-seeking buffoon, but this is just one more incident of him shooting his mouth off on Twitter, so his response, ignorant as it was, wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The best place to include it is in the inauguration. Just a mention that Lewis called it illegitimate, politicians boycotted, singers and musicians refused to participate leading to a few D list people singing (not the A and b list) Samswik (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't even add it to the inauguration article, as it's only Lewis' opinion. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I have to agree with Scjessey on this for inclusion. Lewis has his own motives, that's obvious. It's totally political. The Russian story seems to be BS, but Lewis is a prominent member of Congress and when he says the new president is not legitimate, that's an issue that should be noted. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If multiple politicians were saying it, it would be worth mentioning. With just one person saying it - and not making a big point of it, but mentioning it in an interview - it should be covered only at Lewis's page IMO. Some of the other things that Samswik mentioned should be in the inauguration article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe 19 Dem congress people are boycotting the Inauguration because Trump is not 'legitimate.' SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, they are free to exercise their First Amendment rights. Some people will surely claim that makes them not legitimate, though. Perceived legitimacy is a two-way street… — JFG ^talk 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: 19 Dem congress people are boycotting the Inauguration because Trump is not 'legitimate.' Wrong. They are refusing to attend the inauguration, yes, for various reasons: they don't approve of Trump or his platform or his rhetoric or whatever. AFAIK none of them has said it is because he is not the legitimate president. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was just to go along with Lewis after the Twitter thing. And Lewis also boycotted George W. Bush's inaugural in 2000. I guess he wasn't legitimate either. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange move by Lewis, since Bush's first inaugural was in 2001. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As usual, Trump responded with his customary tact and grace: "John Lewis said about my inauguration, "It will be the first one that I've missed." WRONG (or lie)! He boycotted Bush 43 also because he "thought it would be hypocritical to attend Bush's swearing-in....he doesn't believe Bush is the true elected president." Sound familiar! WP" -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It belongs in John Lewis' article and the Inauguration article, but not here (not unless it grows bigger or something). As an aside when are we gonna get that Stuff Trump says on Twitter article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's grown bigger "or something". This is a major criticism and is worth mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's really only got bigger because the media, which hates Trump, won't stop talking about it. Their narrative is getting uglier and while at first I thought it should be included, but only as a mention, I have to agree with the others that this doesn't belong here. Maybe the election page. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It got bigger in a different manner but it does seem that some distance from the actual statement and the boycott itself would be a better way to deal with the notability issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Middle Initial

Seeing that Mr. Trump refers to himself as Donald J. Trump, both on his Twitter account and campaign website, shouldn't this article accurately reflect how he refers to himself? Shouldn't the name of this article be Donald J. Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsam (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions are described at WP:COMMONNAME. Fact of the matter is, no one calls Donald Trump Donald J. Trump except Donald Trump. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not true, he's been introduced as next speaker numerous times as "Donald J. Trump". (Mike Pence consistently uses "Donald Trump" when introducing, which always sounds weird to me since almost all others don't.) --IHTS (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: However, that is at official campaign events and the like. They refer to him as Donald J. Trump because he wants to be referred to as Donald J. Trump. MB298 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't know that (the reason so many varied people introduce him using "J"; I'm sure it is a personal choice, and people differ). p.s. I don't advocate the page be moved. But is it mandated that name atop Infobox image exactly match article title? I know "J." has been added by others and reverted by others several times. I doubt it's counter policy, and "Donald J. Trump" atop Infobox image would reflect just fine the commonly heard "Donald J. Trump" in introductions. --IHTS (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's correct; what the subject calls himself is not the criterion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, what the subject of a BLP calls himself does matter. This was a question way back when with Wendy Deng, former wife of Rupert Murdoch. I believe her article called her Wendy Murdoch, but she did not use that name when she was married to him, and the article was moved. Bill Clinton made it plain when he became president that he would be known as Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson. If Trump calls himself Donald J. Trump, Wikipedia shouldn't have a problem with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

However, almost all sources use "Donald Trump" instead of "Donald J. Trump" (except official Trump publications and the New York Times). He is almost universally regarded as Donald Trump. It is highly unnecessary to move the page. MB298 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Up to now the Reliable Sources have always called him Donald Trump. The only thing that could change that IMO that would be the way he is styled as president. If official White House practice becomes to refer to him as "President Donald J. Trump" then we will have to look at that. But for now we should stay with what Reliable Sources have always called him. (BTW I said the same thing, back in the day, about Hillary Clinton: She always preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton, but she has mostly been referred to, especially in the past couple of years, as Hillary Clinton. Her own campaign eventually came around and started calling her Hillary Clinton, and that is how our article is titled. But if she had been elected and the White House made a practice of calling her "President Hillary Rodham Clinton," I thought we should follow suit. Official White House practice is important because that is probably how they are going to go into history.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:Yes, I was thinking of how he would style himself as president when I made the comment. I was thinking of Bill Clinton's choice. He was also Bill Clinton as governor of Arkansas. However he calls himself as president, that is how his page should be titled. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We can cross that bridge if we come to it, but I would oppose a move per WP:COMMONNAME. "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait a few months after he becomes US President and see what he's written mostly as. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: and @GoodDay: please see WP:INDENT. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've indented properly, as I was responding to the question which began the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I increased the indent level of my last comment by 1, per WP:THREAD. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Karen McDougal?

Searching the archives, I can't find any mention of this story, which doesn't seem to lack either reliable sources or widespread reporting:

• http://www.wsj.com/articles/national-enquirer-shielded-donald-trump-from-playboy-models-affair-allegation-1478309380
• http://theslot.jezebel.com/here-are-pictures-of-donald-trump-with-the-playboy-mode-1788612597
• http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/11/05/who-is-karen-mcdougal-playboy-playmate-donald-trump-affair/
• http://time.com/4559610/donald-trump-national-enquirer-karen-mcdougal/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3907654/National-Enquirer-paid-Playboy-model-150-000-story-alleged-affair-Donald-Trump-married-Melania-never-published-account.html
• http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/playboy-models-mysterious-story-about-an-affair-with-donald-trump/news-story/a0c527053ce9d01b31b6932978a3eb21
• http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-karen-mcdougal-affair-national-enquirer/
• www.ibtimes.com/who-karen-mcdougal-former-playboy-models-alleged-affair-donald-trump-reportedly-2442244
• http://nypost.com/2016/11/05/national-enquirer-paid-150k-to-kill-playmates-trump-affair-tale/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/national-enquirer-protected-trump-model-affair-claim-article-1.2858989
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/national-enquirer-reportedly-paid-150k-story-playboy-models-alleged-affair-trump-944427
• http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/report-national-enquirer-bought-rights-to-trump-affair-story-but-never-published-004848
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/national-enquirer-paid-to-kill-trump-affair-story-report.html
• http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/former-playmate-admits-to-affair-with-donald-trump-but-the-national-enquirer-never-published-the-story/
• http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/donald-trump-once-again-target-malicious-gossip-haters-and-losers
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/5/national-enquirer-quashed-details-alleged-affair-b/

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not every "scandal" is notable. This is an encyclopedic BLP, not a tabloid archive. — JFG ^talk 03:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:FART is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. WP:ENC is a list of links to policies; if you have a specific one in mind, it would be helpful to mention which one, and which part specifically. WP:BLP is lengthy and its main point - to make sure that biographical information is verifiable, neutrally stated, and not original research - isn't an issue here. Again, being specific - in this case, about what part of WP:BLP you think is at issue - would be helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The BLP issue comes from accusations and it also seems to lack WP:DUE. What I think they are trying to say with WP:FART, even though just an essay, is that its not notable just because RS report on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A similar point is made at WP:ONUS, which does not suffer from Only An Essay disease. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that consensus is the overriding determination of whether something should or shouldn't be in an article; part of that is definitely about how much weight (space) to give to a particular issue (basically, a WP:UNDUE question). I don't think that one sentence (at most two) in the article on Donald Trump would be giving this issue undue weight, but I haven't looked at where it might fit in (if anywhere). Since, so far, there isn't anyone proposing that this issue be included in the article (I'm on the fence about it, hence my question rather proposed wording, or an actual edit to the article), I'm content to see if there is any further discussion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be appropriate here. These are all claims being made and this article is not the place to litigate claims. It doesn't matter the weight or consensus. There's no there 'there' unless she won something in a court of law, not the court of journalistic opinion which has no proof of a 'catch and kill' story. Firstly, she went to the National Enquirer, not the New York Times, which would not have paid her. Secondly, it's also possible the Enquirer did investigate and found her story to be less than truthful. Buying all the rights assure them of an exclusive. We don't know the truth and this is not the place to investigate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Activities

Is this golf thing really biographically significant? I have my doubts. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's very trivial. I think it should be removed.- MrX 02:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Out with it per WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ax it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done - [40] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it might be retaliation from r/The_Donald for the article about Schrödinger's Dossier. I won't be surprised if a lot more non-notable trivia gets added here before they calm down. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That seemed badly written and sourced however...golf is a major part of his life. Eventually that may well be sourced and written better.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mighty quick consensus-gathering on a non-earth-shaker (if it were to stay in for more than a few hours). No retaliation was involved by 'them', that I know of, or me. It was not mine originally but it was removed from the Business career of Donald Trump and I thought it still 'bore weight' as a personal detail so brought it here fairly intact. I can check the source and work on the wording. Any consensus on that? I see two votes for it so far. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Had the rules been more closely followed, the content would have been removed the second it was disputed. Either by Scjessey or by MrX, depending on whether Scjessey was actually disputing it. Per WP:ONUS, the burden would then have been on you to gain consensus for the content. So the content was given more time in the article than was required by the rules. Any consensus on a new proposal would depend on the details of that proposal, and I would suggest a new thread for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I absolutely agree it doesn't belong in the article. The reason I didn't remove it myself is that I usually prefer to get the sense of other editors before doing anything non-trivial in article space. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Leave it out I know you are proposing this in good faith, and there is a source - one source - for it. However I can't recall any mention, through the obsessively-reported year-and-a-half campaign coverage, of him ever actually PLAYING golf, except as part of promotion of his golf courses. Maybe what he loves is owning golf courses. I don't think this is well enough sourced as being a major part of his life to include in his biography. Anyhow, in looking at articles about previous presidents who had a well-known favorite leisure activity, I don't see any mention of it in their article. Barack Obama loves to play basketball; I don't find that in his article. George H. W. Bush loved to sail; I don't find that in his article. Dwight D. Eisenhower loved golf so much he was often criticized for spending too much time on the course; I don't find a mention of golf in his article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest the consensus here is for exclusion, with the relative silence indicating this is non-controversial. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not restructuring intel agencies

I removed a sentence about this. His spokesman says it's false. See "Trump is not planning to restructure spy agencies, spokesman says" by Antonio José Vielma (Thu, 5 Jan '17), CNBC.com.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg

Small head

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg

Big head

Which image is best for our purposes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Big head. This cropped image is much better, much more typical of our high-quality BLP's.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Premature - We should revert to the previous image & wait until Trump becomes US President. His official White House portrait will then be released, likely with the presidential flag & national flag behind him. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't speculate on an upcoming new version per WP:Crystal. Better use what we have. — JFG ^talk 18:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to assume a new photo is coming? Obama's first term portrait was also released by his transition team before his inauguration, just like this new Trump photo... Also, was this photo colorized? As others have pointed out, the source of the image is black and white. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Big head but the crop is a bit too tight. Perhaps the uploader Stemoc could produce a slightly looser crop? — JFG ^talk 18:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: the crop has been loosened by MB298: thanks! — JFG ^talk 03:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all versions Neutral - I don't care what photo we use as long as we have consensus, but can someone (Calibrador or Stemoc?) explain how a color photo was sourced from a document that only contains a black and white version of the photo?- MrX 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC),- MrX 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposing all proposed versions of this image per shenanigans at Commons. It seems that the uploader and the derivative uploader can't or won't provide any evidence of the image being public domain and it appears likely that the image may have been recolored by an editor, which if true, is astonishing.- MrX 00:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Don't like because it seems to me that the picture is obviously photoshopped, what with the White House and flag backdrop, and I think we can do better - with almost any other unphotoshopped picture. Carptrash (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Don't crop - or as you are dismissively calling it, "small head". On the one hand, we have been told that we have to use this version because it is an "official" version; that was regarded as so obvious that the discussion was wham, bam, closed, 19 minutes from the appearance of the color image to the closure of the discussion. On the other hand, we are now being told that we shouldn't use the official version, we should alter it because... well, apparently because the official version wasn't the right choice after all. If we have "decided" to go with the inaugural invitation ("official") version for now, then go with it. However, I would like to see an answer to MrX's question above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  By the way, my concern is also about the image being released under the proper license. Just because the subject will soon be a government official does not necessarily mean that the photo is public domain.- MrX 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Don't crop. The proportions are all wrong. Also, I agree with MrX. We have to make sure this is okay on the copyright. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  User:MelanieN, there's ample precedent for cropping. See, e.g., this featured image of President Franklin Pierce. Monsieur X does pose interesting questions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You had to go back to Franklin Pierce to find an example? j/k :) I do note that the infobox image for the current president, Barack Obama, uses his full official portrait, from the waist up. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was looking for a featured image of a President (i.e. featured in English Wikipedia rather than the Arabic or Persian Wikipedias), and Pierce's was the first one I stumbled upon. Besides, he went to Bowdoin College which is a favorite of mine. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Uncropped is better framed, but I'm perfectly happy with the cropped version too because he looks ridiculous either way. This is really the best they could come up with? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  The uncropped image appears to be almost 50% pitch black, which looks to me like extraordinarily bad photo composition, though easily remedied by a crop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  Maybe the screen you are using is crappy? It's a dark blue jacket. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's as crappy as any iPhone. His suit looks pitch black and takes up almost 50% of the screen. FYI, I've marked the image at Commons as a copyvio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the new, post-inauguration official photo has significantly better composition, with more light-colored material to the right of his jacket.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• If the uncropped image is confirmed to be the official portrait, then we should use the uncropped image. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that I know that this was colorized by a Wikipedian from the black and white image, I say neither should be used. Just wait for the administration to release an image and say "this is the image" rather than all this nonsense of picking and colorizing photos. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Neither are 'official', they may go with another image taken at the same time where he "may" be smiling. This is just one of the few "official" images they have. For Obama in 2008, they were using his senate image before his newer POTUS image was released. I'm sure they will release the image noted above in a much Higher Quality/resolution in a matter of days. If no image has been released by inauguration day, we should pick one of the two above and use it for the time being. I'm sure they , just like us are confused what image to use for their new POTUS cause believe me, he will look horrible and orangey in whatever they'll choose (like we found out on this page for the last 2ish years :P ) I won't be surprised if the official image they release of his is in Black and White lol --Stemoc 00:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with Stemoc above. This should be used after inauguration day until an official portrait is released. This is the closest to an official portrait we have. RedBear2040 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all versions - Gage Skidmore has stated that he colorized the b&w version from the PDF. I find it very hard to believe that a b&w photo, taken before he was president, is to pass forever as the official White House photo, which was the consensus that was formed in last month's RfC. I understand people's desire to finally put this to bed, but bending a consensus is the wrong way to do it in my opinion. I agree that the 19 minutes was precipitous.
  Wait until there is a web page https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump and it contains a formal portrait. Then use that without discussion. If that portrait is later replaced with a new one, use it without discussion.
  If the web page shows a b&w photo, which seems unlikely, I have no objection to colorizing it if that is within our rules. But that, of course, would open a new can of worms because some would have objections to the subjective judgment of the colorizer. As I said, that scenario seems unlikely and we can hope it doesn't come to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: (repeating my comment from the new thread "airport photo" above) I don't see why we even have to discuss this. The final RfC on picture choice was concluded with: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. It didn't say "once Trump is sworn in" or "once the White House web site is updated" or "once there is an official portrait that a majority of Wikipedia editors do not dislike". This is an official portrait and it must go into the article with no further discussion or moving the goalposts. The licensing and colorizing issues are being debated at Commons with a clear trend to keep the picture and accept the PD-US license. Even if that image ends up deleted (which is doubtful), we can revert to another one at that time. Now let's quit the edit warring, insert the picture that we have, and just move on. — JFG ^talk 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to cross-post.
As I've said previously, five editors used the words "official White House" in their !votes in the RfC, and none disputed that or offered any alternative. That being the case, it's absurd to suggest that the closer meant anything different in their summary. There is little question that we will insert the photo from the whitehouse.gov webpage when it becomes available; the only question is what to put in the infobox for the short time that we're waiting for that photo. My !vote is one for stability, one change instead of two. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, 5 people said they want an official White House photo, and 23 more people said they just want an official photo, without mentioning the White House. That's probably why RfC closer EvergreenFir only said "Once an official portrait becomes available" in their long commentary. Consensus is overwhelming, and we have an official photo. Other editors point out that prior presidents had their official portrait released before the inauguration too. No reason to sit on it. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps EvergreenFir will state that they anticipated this situation and meant "any official photo", including a user-colorized version of a b&w taken before he was even president, but I doubt it.
I've clearly articulated my reasons to "sit on it"; I get that you don't agree with them. I fully understand that in the end I'm only one !vote, and consensus is rarely unanimous. Thus there is no point in continuing this, but I stand by my position. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually what is likely to happen is as follows. After another few days or a week of debate, we will install one of the colorized images. Then, when a new photo appears on the website, we will be unable to agree on whether to keep the existing one or use the new one. That is, unless there is a consensus here to use the colorized photo and never consider anything else, which doesn't seem likely. The completely subjective arguments will start all over again, and we'll be forced into another RfC to resolve them in what amounts to a democratic vote. So much for putting it to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Use the picture. Ever since they started using "official" photographs in government offices, ALL first term presidents' were taken as president-elect, with the exception of the five VP's who succeeded in midterm. The official portrait of Obama was released in December 2008, and was used until 2012. The second Bush's was used throughout his eight years. So let's just use the new one and gripe about how horrible he's going to be elsewhere. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any colorized version of this. I'm sorry but the colorization does not set a good precedent, this is the President of the US we're talking about here. Surely we shouldn't resort to a random user with Photoshop to provide the illustration for one of the most prominent Wikipedia articles around here. Either do a direct, untouched crop of the original (http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Entire%20Program.pdf) retaining the black & white or keep the current image until theres an official release from the White House. ValarianB (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support using the official photo immediately. Uncolorized, uncropped. OK to substitute the cropped version, for greater accessibility: the larger image of the face is "easier to read". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC) 02:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Don't crop and use the official (and unedited) version immediately. I'm not seeing any problems with it.LM2000 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Big head. Excellent job colorizing & cropping. --IHTS (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Small head. Obama's photo isn't cropped, why should Trump's? ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 03:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

NOT the 45th president

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg Donald Trump was impeached January 22nd, 2017. I suggest that we use it in the infoBox, as it's the official photo [redacted]. As prior consensus is required, I now officially request it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as that's a picture of him as president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - there is already an ongoing discussion about this very image earlier on this talk page. I would urge users to look for existing discussion before adding new threads. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  Attached to existing discussion. Wholeheartedly agree with Scjessey's comment as to talk page awareness. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support – I don't see why we even have to discuss this. The final RfC on picture choice was concluded with: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. It didn't say "once Trump is sworn in" or "once the White House web site is updated" or "once there is an official portrait that a majority of Wikipedia editors do not dislike". This is an official portrait and it must go into the article with no further discussion or moving the goalposts. The licensing and colorizing issues are being debated at Commons with a clear trend to keep the picture and accept the PD-US license. Even if that image ends up deleted (which is doubtful), we can revert to another one at that time. Now let's quit the edit warring, insert the picture that we have, and just move on. — JFG ^talk 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as we've already had this discussion. Check threads before starting new one. If there is an official presidential picture released then we can switch them out. But for now, this is it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support using the official photo, immediately. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, because this image is a much more professional portrait than what we've got now. This web page is about to get yuuge attention, so waiting until next month will be too late for the millions of people who will visit beforehand.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support JJARichardson (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. As of this moment, it is his official portrait. President Obama's portrait was taken and released before he was inaugurated. We should use this until another comes out RedBear2040 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. --IHTS (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The consensus was to use the other photo until this one is out. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons I already stated in the already ongoing discussion about this same re-colored inauguration program photo. Also, printing a photo in a program is not equivalent to "releasing" it.- MrX 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - still no idea where this apparent photoshop of a prior image file is from, and now an also unsourced story that this will go into airports ... Can Arglebargle79 at least say where the URL where that was mentioned ??? I see a variation of it published in the inauguration pdf, but the provenance of the image is a photoshop on photoshop of something from somewhere. It's clearly him, but not clearly shown origins or copyright. Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Question. Did the page get locked because of this photo? Do we even know if this is the official photo? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Yes, It got locked because some people were edit warring to remove the consensus supported photo currently on the page. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL -- This is not coming from the transition team or a photographer he's designated. The one posted is a photoshop to recolor and airbrushed the hairline of a scan from a B&W in the inaugural pamphlet, which seems itself to be a photoshop of some unknown prior image to give it a flag and summer White house background. Sidenote Time.com mentioned he has not gotten a photographer as Obama had Souza, not sure if that's a policy stance or is a product of he's got an awful lot of positions still unfilled. Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support using this photo until the official portrait is posted on or after Inauguration Day. No benefit comes from using a year and a half old image. Calibrador (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated elsewhere in this scattered mess. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: in a quick Google search I could find no support for the claim that this picture is going to be used in "airports"[41] and "government offices".[42] A quick Google search for "Trump photo"[43] or "Trump official photo"[44] does not turn up the image being discussed here (except for Wikipedia). This is just for information, I have no opinion on which photo to use. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it's recolored --Distelfinck (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination

• Comment: both images have been nominated for deletion by User:MrX. You can participate in the discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg. MB298 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

MB298 - thanks, I guess I'm for that. Seems a decent photoshop of something that was previously a photoshop but lacks accurate history of provenance and sourcing so misleading to portray it as 'portrait' or 'release'. And since I expect an actual official photograph soon, I see no reason to keep flogging 'how about this photo' over and over. Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Article size

Document statistics for this Donald Trump BLP:

• File size: 1263 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 166 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
• Wiki text: 314 kB
• Prose size (text only): 79 kB (12850 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 3439 B

Document statistics for the Hillary Clinton BLP (which is a featured article):

• File size: 1086 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 190 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 30 kB
• Wiki text: 280 kB
• Prose size (text only): 102 kB (16410 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 3414 B

Accordingly, I don't think the TooLong tag is justified at the top of this BLP at this time, and will remove it (it's already been removed and restored without any talk page discussion).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

79 kB is really not that much, when we're considering the scope of the individual in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that current size is fine. (And I've been one of the people trimming unwieldy sections.) Comparison with Hillary Clinton's article suffers from WP:OSE though. — JFG ^talk 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE (a guideline) trumps WP:OSE (an essay), so you need better arguments in order to justify your position.. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The guideline says "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided". We're only at 79 kB.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It also states: "> 60 kB—[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." I have yet to see any justifycation for keeping it above 60 kB. —MartinZ02 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to reducing the article size, but we don't need the TooLong template to do that. What parts of the article would you eliminate, Martin?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I think we should split the following sections:

• "Business career",
• "Entertainment and media",
• "Political career",
• "Personal life", and
• "Legal matters". —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How would splitting them reduce article size?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is going to have less content if we move content elsewhere, thus reducing article size. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean creating new subarticles. But there's already Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Filmography of Donald Trump, etc. So, are you saying that our summaries of those subarticles are too verbose?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Font size

Howdy folks. TBH, I'm not overly concerned if we have one of either sizes - (elect) or (elect) - in the infobox. Just please, make sure that it matches what's in the Mike Pence article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The following is copied from User talk:GoodDay.
1. MOS:FONTSIZE advises against further reduction of font size where the font size is already smaller than default. As a guideline, that represents a community consensus. This is an accessibility issue and Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously.
2. You do not have a local consensus to deviate from the guideline at Donald Trump. As a matter of fact, you have not even sought one.
3. There is no community consensus for inter-article consistency as a general principle.
4. It matters not how many editors don't like the guideline, or how many articles fail to observe it. That is not how community consensus is determined. You are free to try to get the guideline changed.
I have tried my best to express to GoodDay that inter-article consistency lacks community consensus and that it's essentially an I just like it argument. If there is a p&g basis for deviating from FONTSIZE, I would like to hear it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep trying to have them consistent. Shouldn't be difficult with only about 50 hrs to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there's a standard info box font? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

John Lewis comments

The following was deleted from the article today.

On January 13, 2017, John Lewis stated during an interview: "I don't see the president-elect as a legitimate president." He added, "I think the Russians participated in having this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don't plan to attend the Inauguration. I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected. That's not right. That's not fair. That's not the open, democratic process." Trump replied on Twitter the following day, suggesting that Lewis should "spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results," and accusing Lewis of being "All talk, talk, talk — no action or results. Sad!" Criticism of Trump for his Twitter comments noted Lewis is the civil rights leader who was brutally beaten for the cause.

References

I believe something like this would be included in a NPOV Donald Trump article as it has been much more widely reported in the media than most items currently included in the Donald Trump article. Does anyone else care to comment? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article. Just because CNN has obsessed with it (more then Obama's having commuted Manning's jail time), doesn't convince me of its needing inclusion in this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a thread for this. No consensus there to include yet. — JFG ^talk 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Way, way TMI for this biographical article. There are articles where this information could be included (John Lewis, for sure, and maybe inauguration) but not this one. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus or no consensus for re-colored Trump inauguration program photo

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.

---

Ladies and Gentlemen, this discussion: #The official portrait of the President-elect is out. is not a new consensus. For one thing, the portrait is not the official White House portrait, or nor is there any evidence that it's official anything. Second, consensus is not determined by one of the few participants in the discussion after only a few minutes. I'm disappointed to see several editors pointing to that discussion as justification for inserting a re-colored version of the inauguration program photo into the article while ignoring the bona fide consensus. I'm looking to Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040 to explain these end runs around consensus.- MrX 01:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make the point that I have not once pointed to that discussion as justification. I am referring to the official consensus (Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs), which clearly states:

"1. Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link) – Update 17 January 2017: official portrait released (link 2)."

This is the official photo that the Senate released. If they upload a different portrait on the White House website after he is inaugurated, then that one should be used. At the moment, however, this is what we've been given and, per the current consensus quoted above, this is what we should use. RedBear2040 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there's some confusion about the term "released". Printing a photo in a program is not "releasing" it, nor does it render it official.- MrX 01:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If the program is official and the program is released then it would seem that its contents are official and released.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The !votes at Talk:Donald_Trump#The_.22airport.22_photo look lopsided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was blatantly to use the official photo once released (Until you tried to remove that point) - The official photo is now released so the consensus is to use the official photo. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how consensus works. It's not a vote and it's not a 20 minute discussion closed by one of the editors commenting in the discussion. Your attempt to edit war this claim of consensus into the list at the top of the page is also troubling. The encyclopedia is not built by brute force and this type of aggressive conduct can lead to sanctions.- MrX 01:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The note was introduced by @JFG: in this edit almost two days ago. The only person having a problem with that since then, is you. How does that make consensus in your favor? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Twitbookspacetube: Not true. Several editors beside myself have opposed the photo that was taken from from inauguration program and re-colored.- MrX 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, consensus is blatantly clear that the official photo is to be used when released. The current photo in the article is the official photo which is supported by consensus. As such, you need a NEW consensus before you change it. And that has not happened yet. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The first point on Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs literally says that the re-colored picture is consensus. Do not think that this is aggressive and do not try to put sanctions on me or anyone else. According to Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, the re-colored picture is what we should use. Until another picture comes out, we should use that one. RedBear2040 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MrX sounds like someone who is playing "his way or the highway" here...consensus CLEARLY says to add the color cropped pic...don't know what the issue is. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment about how consensus does not work. - MrX 02:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MrX The only editors who say such things are the ones consensus goes against. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I support in general the comments by Twitbookspacetube, Rick4512, Vjmlhds, RedBear2040, and Anythingyouwant, oppose in general the argument by MrX, support in particular his complaint about colorization, and nonetheless support using the colorized image OR grayscale image as opposed to the old image per talk page consensus. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I think MrX has a valid point, he's just not being heard. This might be the official photo, but nobody here knows that for sure. Snark doesn't make it so. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I respectfully wish to point out that this was the photo released for the Inauguration by the United States Senate. Short of a portrait on whitehouse.gov, it can't get much more official than that. Also, you are technically correct: we don't know 100% for sure if this is the official portrait. However, we also don't know that it's not. What we do know is that the Senate has included this picture in black and white at https://www.inaugural.senate.gov/58th-inauguration/ceremony. Worst case scenario is that we were wrong and we put the new one up afterwards. RedBear2040 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is enough doubt and criticism surrounding the new image that the reasonable, non-WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is to wait for the uncontroversial photo, the one that virtually everybody will agree on. That may be asking too much, granted. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, until an even more official photo is released, WP:CONSENSUS says to use the current photo from an official source. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of this current dispute is that the RfC consensus is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be. Reasonable editors can interpret it in either of two ways in good faith. It is nobody's fault that the RfC failed to anticipate this situation, but the fact remains that it did not anticipate it, resulting in an ambiguous consensus. That leaves us with three choices: (1) yet another RfC, (2) agreement to go the uncontroversial route, and (3) continue the current battleground approach. Of the three, I prefer #2. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I prefer #2 as well, and if people stopped edit warring against the blatantly clear consensus for the current image, it would help a lot. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

blatantly clear consensus - Saying it repeatedly, even with words like "blatantly" thrown in for enphasis, don't make it true. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link) – Update 17 January 2017: official portrait released (link 2) seems blatantly clear to me. And the current photo is from an official source and used for an official event, how much more official does it need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The additional notation was added[45] 66 minutes after the colorized photo appeared on this page.[46] The items in that list are only as weighty as the consensus supprting them via the links, and it's highly circular to use that entry to show consensus when the discussion used to support it is itself highly contested. The only reason that part of the entry remains in the list is that most editors understand this relationship, so they don't see any need to add the list to the field of battle. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#Trump_Photo_2_Rfc for the consensus to use a certain image until the official one is released. And as far as all available evidence shows, this IS the official photo. It is from and official source and used for an official event. I ask again, how much more official does it need to be? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I already countered that argument above. You are not required to agree with me, but I would like to see some indication that you heard me and considered my argument fairly. I am not seeing that, and I am not going to continue pointless circular debate with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am listening to your argument, but also attempting to point out the consensus and facts to you, but you are not willing to listen to reason. When the article is unprotected, anyone's continuation of anti-consensus edit warring to remove the current official photo from an official source and used for an official event will be met by harsh sanctions from any uninvolved admin who receives the report. Those are the facts. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't make ridiculous threats on behalf of admins; it makes you look silly and inexperienced. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And deliberately being unwilling to listen to consensus and facts and answer inconvenient questions makes you TOTALLY reasonable! *eyeroll* Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: has got it right. This is battleground behavior. The page has been locked over this and there is no excuse for it. Earlier, MrX pointed out this problem but nobody listened. There is no real consensus if we don't even know if this photo is official and copyright free and therefore, this constant battle over it is down to "I want my way." All that's been had for that attitude is the locked page. When the official portrait is released, the one that goes into all the government agencies and VA hospitals and local federal courts, that's the one that will go into this article. It will be the official one and it will be copyright free. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And until that even more official photo is released, the current official photo from an official source and used for an official event will suffice as the official photo that consensus clearly dictates that we must use. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the President-elect image of Trump. However, it will eventually be replaced during this week by a Presidential portrait of Trump. Therefore, I won't be losing any sleep over the current 'temporary' image :) GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A new portrait has been released on whitehouse.gov. here. Is this public domain and OK to use in the infobox? RedBear2040 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2017 (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.

Here's why I requested full protection

Here's what has been going on at the article:

• (Talk page: 1/17 14:24 a cropped colorized new photo was proposed, described as an official photo; consensus at previous RfC had been to wait for an official photo)
• 1/17, 15:25 The new cropped, colorized photo was added to the article by JFG.
• (Talk page: 1/17 15:36 The photo discussion was non-admin closed by Linguist with 5 participants.)
• 1/17, 17:14, Cropped photo was replaced with uncropped colorized version by Calibrador
• 1/18, 00:23 Original photo restored by MrX.
• 1/18, 01:35, Cropped colorized version restored by Count Awesome
• 1/18, 01:39 Original photo restored by Muboshgu
• 1/18, 05:59 Cropped colorized version restored by Jashualeverburg1
• 1/18, 06:17, Original photo restored by Mandruss
• (Talk page: 1/18 15:07 the cropped colorized version was formally proposed.)
• 1/18, 23:43, Uncropped colorized version restored by Vjmlhds
• (Talk page: At this point the talk page tally for it was 3 support, 1 oppose)
• 1/18, 23:54 Original photo restored by Muboshgu
• 1/19, 00:25, Cropped Uncropped colorized version restored by RedBear2040
• (Talk page: At this point the talk page tally was 8 support, 1 oppose)
• 1/19, 00:31 Original photo restored by Ihardlythinkso
• 1/19, 00:34 Uncropped colorized version restored by Rick4512
• 1/19, 00:38, Original photo restored by MrX
• 1/19, 00:42 Uncropped colorized version restored by Twitbookspacetube
• 1/19 01:05 Cropped colorized version restored by Twitbookspacetube
• At this point full protection was imposed to stop the edit warring. Come on, folks, you all know better. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is the new photo being forced into the infobox, without a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there is a consensus to use the new photo once it was released. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No version is being forced onto the page. People were edit-warring back and forth, and some admin locked the page on The Wrong Version Next step is to define a new consensus. — JFG ^talk 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And if no consensus is defined, the previous consensus for the current image remains. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion that has only ran for 12 hours (and that duplicates another discussion in which 5 editors opposed the same photo) does not constitute consensus. Who was it who said "some people,... are only able to edit Wikipedia once a week.... Active editors should not be excluded from discussions here,..."?- MrX 03:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Go further back. The consensus for the image you were edit warring for states that once the official photo is released, the photo you edit warred for would be dropped in favour of the official one. As far as the evidence tells us, that official one is in the article right now. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I believe you are misinterpreting which discussion embodies consensus. The numerous debates about Trump's infobox picture were settled on 12 December 2016, when the last RfC was concluded with overwhelming support to keep the 2015 picture until an official portrait is available, then use that. All I did was implement this consensus. I understand that you are not convinced this colorized image should be considered an official portrait, but that's a separate debate, to be settled at Commons (and it's trending towards Keep). Of course consensus can change and the community is welcome to open a new discussion on that basis (which seems to be happening at the bizarrely-named "airport" section), however while this discussion happens, the new image must be considered the "previous consensus" as defined on December 12. — JFG ^talk 04:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: You are correct about the December consensus, but as you correctly point out, the assertion that the re-colored inauguration program photo is the "official portrait" is debatable. In fact, it lacks any evidence whatsoever as far as I can tell. Some editors seem to assume that it is official, I'm guessing because it's the most presidential looking photograph of Trump, but reasonable people disagree. When there is a publication that publishes a photo and says "here's the official Presidential portrait", then we will know that is the official Presidential portrait. By the way, I doubt it will be monochrome, and really doubt that it will be re-colored. For anyone who cares, the reason I say re-colored rather than colored, is that it's likely the image was captured by a digital camera in color, and then converted to monochrome, and then hand-colored by one of our own editors.- MrX 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Until official confirmation one way or the other, the current image is to be considered official per the evidence we have now. Those sanctions you warned me about go both ways. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are aware of the sanctions, you can be blocked at any time. This photo is not worth that. We'll know soon enough if this is the official portrait. I imagine it is or it would not be on the official program. But edit warring and getting the page locked are not helping. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

By the same token, anyone edit warring against the consensus for the current image can also be blocked at any time after being made aware of or acknowledging the sanctions. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, your summary line "1/19, 00:25, Cropped colorized version restored by RedBear2040" was wrong, I've corrected it. Also, your summary line comment "(At this point the talk page tally was 8 support, 1 oppose)" is unclear and ambiguous since it implies voting between 2 different images, when the edit warring involved at least 3 images. Also, the consensus image throughout was made ambiguous/unclear by attempts to clarify it at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, so your generalized shaming is really not appropriate. --IHTS (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just want to quickly point to precedent with Barack Obama in 2008/2009 before he was inaugurated and was President-elect. This verison is from December 31, 2008 (his official portrait was released on January 13 or 14, 2009) is the equivalent of what has so far been released of Donald Trump. Both of the photos are from the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee's official program for the inauguration. Just wanted to make sure to include precedent. Calibrador (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Calibrador - That's clearly not correct. That Obama photo was not from any inauguration committee. The Obama image metadata clearly says it came from the Obama Transition site change.gov/about/photo, plainly directed for release for use and posted with Creative Commons license.

Looks to me that the Obama's transition 2009 period photos seem to go like so:

• 14 Jan 2009 18:26 - 'official' serious image with flag here

(from official photographer Pete Souza, via change.gov)

• 13 Jan 2009 09:32 - 'poster' smiling image with flag here

(via change.gov, dated Nov 2008 and reviewed by WP admin 7 Dec)

• 5 Nov 2009 13:25 - paneled 2005 senator photo here

(via Obama.senate.gov/newsroom ; apparently WP quick patch for deleted image)

• 5 Nov 2009 09:00 - mixup, image later deleted here

(no idea what that was)

• prior - stark grey backdrop here

(via Senate.gov/artandhistory )

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I am correct. Feel free to look back upon the 56th Inauguration invitation. Calibrador (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection Frivolous

OP indef-blocked for socking, nothing constructive here. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Let the record show that MelanieN has not provided a single compelling reason to support her draconian request for full page protection. Her irritation is over an absurd dispute regarding a photograph. Since MelanieN evidently doesn't take page protection seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to. This cannot stand.AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC) MelanieN explained her reasoning in detail, we get that you don't find it compelling. Admin Oshwah considered her request and judged that protection was necessary to restore the article to stability. If autoconfirmed editors engage in extended edit-warring at an article under ArbCom remedies, there is little alternative to full protection, unless you prefer to temp-block all of the editors involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC) I have blocked AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am, an account created a few hours ago. It's pretty frivolous IMO to use a flyby sock for disrupting controversial pages, as here, here and here. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC). I thought I smelled foot odour! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Refreshing break

Independently of the arguments pro and contra the new picture, I feel that a 3-day lock provides a refreshing break to all of us valiant editors. How nice it is to envision sailing through the inauguration weekend without monitoring the Trump page constantly! — JFG ^talk 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

On that, we can agree - It'll be very nice to not see the usual vandalism during major events. But it would still be a good idea to keep an eye on related pages. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Timing

There is a timing issue here. The protecting administrator chose to protect the page for three days. That will include the inauguration, at which point Trump will take the oath of office and we ought to change the article from "president-elect" to "president". We have three options.

• We could just leave it saying "president elect" until January 22; I don't think that is acceptable.
• An administrator could edit through the full-protection to make that one change, while leaving the image question in limbo. I could even do that if necessary.
• A third and IMO best approach would be for us to resolve our differences in the next 24 hours and reach an actual consensus, and then ask the protecting admin to lift the protection. This is what we are supposed to be doing during this "refreshing break". By "actual consensus" I do not mean for one faction to simply proclaim that they have consensus while another strongly disagrees; that's what got us into this mess. We could ask for a neutral outsider to step in and anoint one image as consensus; that's the usual way such things are decided but it probably couldn't be accomplished in the 24 hours we have left - and it might not be accepted by all parties considering the strong passions that seem to be involved here. The best approach, and the one most convincing to the protecting administrator, would be for consensus to actually be reached - or at least for one version to become so clearly the majority choice that the minority would withdraw their objections and agree to allow the majority version in the article without attempting to remove it (at least temporarily and while subject to further discussion; WP:CCC). At this point I frankly don't see any likelihood of this happening. Up to now the discussion has mostly consisted of people talking past each other about whether the new version is or is not "official" within the meaning of the previous RfC. Come on, folks, can we please try to work together like Wikipedians and get this resolved? Or are we going to wait out the 3-day break and then go back to edit warring? --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requests (which will be incoming) to update the article in those areas after Noon EST tomorrow, will most likely be carried out by administrators, without dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure no one will object to changing "president-elect" to "president" tomorrow, assuming that Trump actually takes the oath. Any other changes should use the edit protected process, if they have consensus. The image discussion should be allowed to run at least a few days.- MrX 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. CBS527^Talk 16:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

DRN

I have filed a request at WP:DRN - please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Donald_Trump Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Request to Lock Page

What is wrong with you people? We need this page locked, posthaste! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.141.60 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

it already is until Jan. 22. MB298 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Neopalpa donaldtrumpi

Would this recently described moth, named after Trump, warrant itself a place within this article? Seems like another honour to the list unless we only include notable ones. Sources: [47], original article Burklemore1 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We only include notable ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A name given to a species is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

For the moth article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Burklemore1 - I think it only fits the topic of a Bio article if it has affected their life story in a significant way. So a mention would be big at the moth side, but think not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned in List of things named after Donald Trump. That's good enough. MB298 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that list existed. If I had known I wouldn't have posted. Cheers for the answers everyone. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The species will probably exist long after Donald Trump is forgotten.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox religion

I can't remove the religion from the infobox. According to this RFC WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, religions in infoboxes should generally be omitted. Bluesphere 09:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule that it can't be there. There is no mention in Obama's, but there is mention of religion in George W. Bush's. Trump identifies as a life long Presbyterian, and apparently he goes to church. It should stay because for him it's relevant. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Template:Infobox person doesn't list the religion parameter as required in infoboxes. Take a look [48] Bluesphere 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

While not required, that does not mean it cannot be there. As SW3 mentioned it was deemed important to him so it was included. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty certain this was discussed quite some time ago and the result was remove. His church says he is not an active member.[49] Objective3000 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

He sometimes goes to the Collegiate Marble Church in New York. He was married there, maybe to Ivana or Marla Maples? Not sure. He was a big fan of Rev. Norman Vincent Peale who was the minister there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes but, the infobox says Presbyterian and the Marble Collegiate Church is not Presbyterian. Religion is not a significant part of his life. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he's not identifying as a Presbyterian. Marble Collegiate is non-denominational. Anybody can go. I believe one of the Nixon girls was married there with Norman Vincent Peale officiating. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

See the RfC at [50]. I believe the SNOW result was to remove religion except where consensus determines it is directly relevant to why the subject is notable (e.g. Norman Vincent Peale's article). Objective3000 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)  

Okay, thanks. I'll take a look. I do think this is a trivia bit and doesn't have anything to do with the person, but seems more a preference of editors. Especially, if they are only willing to include it if it has some significance. That seems like a built in bias to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

When the article is unlocked, the religion parameter of the infobox should immediately be removed per global and local consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral history

I believe the section should include Donald Trump's performance during Reform Party presidential primaries, 2000.--Bedivere.cs (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If the Reform Party's presidential primaries are notable enough for an article, so should his 2000 presidential run. This is about Donald Trump, not the Presidency of Donald Trump I support NimbleNavigator (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article says: Trump sought the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2000, but withdrew before voting began. I believe that's enough detail and there wouldn't be a significant "electoral result" to report about this fringe primary where he was a fringe candidate. The "electoral history" section is usually meant for career politicians; Trump wasn't a "serious" politician at the time. — JFG ^talk 02:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yawn. Too trivial for such a long article. Objective3000 (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't a "serious candidate" this time either IIRC. The "fringe primary" was in the fringe state of New York. TFD (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Presidintial term: January 20, 2017 2605:6000:1525:81F9:7D6D:69DE:A1AF:D285 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - It is unclear what you want changed, but a date is not a presidential term. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

The article currently says he will be the "oldest [...] to assume the presidency". That is not true. Reagan was older at his second inauguration. I haven't checked whether there are other examples.

I am not sure exactly how to re-word; maybe something like "will be the wealthiest to assume the presidency, and the oldest to assume it for the first time". Trovatore (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reagan held the presidency for two consecutive terms. He didn't assume the office the second time, as he had uninterrupted time in office. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree. It was a new term, so a new assumption of the presidency. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - One can't assume something they already have. Similarly, an incumbent president is not called president-elect upon winning their second term. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is getting into trivia to be so detailed about it. If Trump does not get a second term, a note could be added about Reagan was the oldest to hold the office, but I still think it is too trivial to work in. That kind of detail is better suited to list of presidents of the United States by age article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC) I just checked, that factoid is in there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, so it looks like others have a different interpretation than I have of the meaning of the words, but can we at least agree that there is potential for confusion? How about an explanatory footnote on the word "oldest"? Could be very simple; just "oldest on first inauguration" or some such.
As for it being "too trivial", the problem is not whether it's trivial, but whether it's accurate and clearly stated. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to explanatory footnotes using Template:Refn, and the article already has one such footnote. You will get pushback for using one in the lead, from editors who like a nice, clean lead free of citations, except for the one exceptional case of three consecutive. I have no such strong feelings about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose — the fact is worth noting, and most people would not misinterpret it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But what's wrong with stating it unambiguously, instead of ambiguously as at present? --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – This statement has been discussed many times (search the archives for "oldest") and the current wording is the clearest we can have without becoming tedious. Some editors argued that having this bit of trivia in the lede smacked of ageism, but they didn't prevail in removing it. Status quo looks fine. The linked article gives all the detail readers may dream of. — JFG ^talk 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - All ambiguity is removed by the use of the word "assume" in the sentence and, as JFG correctly notes, the linked article provides all the necessary details. There are flakes falling, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reagan's second term was a continuation of his presidency, not an assumption to the presidency. RedBear2040 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Mz7 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration edits (WP:ER)

I created a sandbox if you want to make changes for when his inauguration takes place (changing all the dates and offices, etc.), When merging, make sure you keep the categories (I removed them per WP:NOUSERCAT), and also keep the protection templates because a bot removed them, make an edit to the sandbox if you spot something. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

On transition

RS regarding Trump claims during the transition:[51] (perhaps the landslide one for this article) see also, [52] for analysis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So an administrator will make the inauguration changes?

It appears that the article has been fully protected. I've actually never seen an article in mainspace protected fully before, but that's besides the point. Question is, which admin will change "President-elect" to "45th President of the United States?" CatcherStorm ^talk 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a sandbox at User:Eric0928/sandbox4, mentioned a couple of threads above. There's a few admins around, but if someone wants to double-check the sandbox you're welcome to give me a ping to copy it over at the appropriate time (WP:RFPP or WP:AN are your other options). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I have added the appropriate infobox to that sandbox page. The infobox has Trump as the incumbent president. The swearing-in ceremony is currently in progress so you should probably make the changes now. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

People tend to be rather particular about timing :/ -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Correction: the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution is particular about timing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Told you ;)  Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration attendance down, massively unpopular

According to the Washington Metro's Twitter feed, trips taken up until 11 A.M. ET are significantly down for this inauguration over 2013 and 2009. Even down on 2005. (source)

• 2017 - 193K
• 2013 - 317K
• 2009 - 513K
• 2005 - 197K

Presumably, this reinforces the fact that Trump is the most unpopular incoming president in 4 decades. Obviously the article needs something about this historic unpopularity. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Do they have numbers on 2001 or earlier? Just curious. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dunno. Perhaps those numbers are the victim of Twitter's 140 character limit? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Put it in Inauguration article, not in the main article. Fbifriday (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, because this isn't just about the inauguration. It is also about Trump's popularity, or lack thereof. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Vox has done some stunning comparison photos showing how poorly attended today's event has been. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Too early for definitive numbers, and I wouldn’t use the Metro or Vox figures. When numbers are available; they obviously belong in an inauguration article. I don’t yet have an opinion on adding them here. Perhaps if the disparity is highly unusual and other factors (e.g. weather) are discounted. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: But what about this issue about Trump being the most unpopular incoming president for 4 decades (see source in my opening comment)? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Should wait for official number, especially since the number of people riding the DC metro do not really mean anything. When they come out it sounds like info for the inauguration article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Scjessey No, this is WP:OFFTOPIC for this BLP article, its not biographical info of something significant in his life. This kind of detail belongs in the article about it, Inauguration of Donald Trump, and not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. The statement "Donald Trump is the most unpopular incoming president for 40 years" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the inauguration. It has to do with him taking office with historically low approval. This is about as biographically significant as it gets. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Scjessey - oh I could be lots more wrong, and have been before. But in this case WP:OFFTOPIC both subjects -- inauguration attendance numbers you presented maybe go towards an edit for the inauguration article, not here, and presidential popularity maybe goes to an edit in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. This is a BLP article, just isn't the place for all things that mention Trump. In any case and whatever article, please show an actual edit proposal to tell, and not just mention that VOX or twitter has something has a new article but also show ontopic and WP:WEIGHT deserving inclusion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

I am requesting that an administrator change "incoming president" at the top to "current president". CatcherStorm ^talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CatcherStorm ^talk 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2017

We need the President of the United States navbox content fixed. It should read January 20, 2017–present, not just January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if the full page protection was to be lifted. It is no longer necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Additionally, the protection was reduced to extended confirmed protection. Mz7 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, protection lightened - have at it. ECP is left on as a precaution for a day or two, after which either I or someone else can reduce it to semi-protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Official portrait

Original

Cropped

Official portrait has now been made available on WhiteHouse.gov, see photo at right. Calibrador (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support adding this version of the official portrait and support removing full page protection immediately, since this ends the silly argument some people were having. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  And it should be the "official" version, uncropped. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Let's not start rotating crops.- MrX 17:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  @MrX: Would those bags under his eyes be crop circles then? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Could be.- MrX 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support why oh why everyone insisted on changing the photo before the White House officially released it is beyond me. Patience, young Jedis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu: With all due respect, that has been settled. Let's move on and try to make sure that there are no hurt feelings on either side and that a mess like that never happens again. RedBear2040 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  @RedBear2040: Haven't read that entire section. I'm sure we'll still be dealing with silly edit wars like that over random things as if that never happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't crop Use the image as they released it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per outcome of previous RfC and common practice.- MrX 17:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per common practice, and outcome of precious RFC.... Christian75 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support uncropped version per RfC consensus. Implement the consensus first, then discuss cropping separately if desired. Don't mix issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Cropped version is a clearer portrait for an infobox. — JFG ^talk 17:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Cropped version not "official", so it should be the uncropped version per the White House website. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Derivative works are allowed and cropping / light retouching / color balancing are common practice on portraits and other pictures. — JFG ^talk 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That may be so, but presumably this image was selected by Trump and his people out of many options and presented in the way he prefers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the official picture as is, and fooling around with it will likely lead to more unnecessary conflict because of the different preferences of certain editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Official portrait, uncropped version. Dustin (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Original uncropped portrait. Calibrador (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support either portraits per common practice and per outcome of the previous RfC. RedBear2040 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I also think we should use the uncropped version, since a altered version is not really "official" - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Unlike the one from the other day, there is no disputing that this uncropped version was mandated by the RfC. Thus this thread was unnecessary for the purpose of simply reaffirming the RfC, and it has mixed that with the question of cropping. I suggest one of the following: Either continue here as discussion of cropping only, or close this down and do that separately. For the sake of organization (cleanliness is next to Jimboliness), I would prefer the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Mandruss. The two are mixed here. It needs to be sorted that we are talking about the cropped version, which I support. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a bit more work yet into redoing or editing the wikifile for original version giving more care to metainfo about sourcing as that was one of the issues under prior discussion. This one starts as an actual photo and from Trump site, but the mediawiki entry is a bit messed/missing. The posted image is here, second image on White House subpage for People People President Donald J. Trump via either The Administration or The Presidents subpages. I see no named author and there seems no permissions, licensing, or ownership data provided by the site. (The main page copyright footer is not available, and USA.gov is directing me to President Trump which is Page not found.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – From a purely æsthetic standpoint, the totally blurred flag and blueish White House background are horrendous, I think Gage had done a much better job with the colorized version, but well this one is official… I concur with Markbassett's comment on the licensing / sourcing. This must be clarified. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Additional comment – I doubt this is the full official White House portrait, and is on Whitehouse.gov on only a temporary basis, as it is stored on the website as "PE Color.jpg" (President-elect). However, until a formal portrait (if there is one) comes out, this one has my full support. MB298 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - And it's the very same image that was used for the inauguration. Looks like the people removing it against consensus have some explaining to do... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - This photo is from the Inaugural Committee. Ostensibly, an official White House portrait will be taken by the Chief Official White House Photographer and be released. That will be his official portrait. Until then, this one should stay. thenextprez

thenextprez - just to say there is no WH photographer as of the Time.com story 18 Jan 2017 about that. I expect a whitehouse.gov photo without fake backdrop will come soon anyway, and that the site will post Copyright Policy too, but no idea when. Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Official website

I think someone needs to change it to http://www.whitehouse.gov. He is listed as President and has been inaugurated.--Guiletheme (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done by another editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I also left the transition website up for now, that has way more information on it, whitehouse.gov just changed over, I think it would be appropriate to leave the transition website in the info for now until more information populates into whitehouse.gov Fbifriday (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Changes

Residence (white house), occupation, Offical twitter (@potus) all need to be updated, along with official website (whitehouse.gov) Fbifriday (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, protection lessened, working on it myself Fbifriday (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The first sentence in Wikipedia biographies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama begin with the same phrasing, as the biography of Donald Trump should do. I am going to change it to reflect the other biographies of his predecessors.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Catherinejarvis: Please don't do that without first discussing it with other editors. There is currently a consensus for the language you are seeking to change, so expect opposition. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The article on President Trump should reflect articles on other recent Presidents, to avoid people using it as a platform for snarky comments. Saying he is a television personality before saying he is the President invites people to abuse other pages for other Presidents. Any President is a television personality by definition. The article should say "Donald Trump is an American politician and the 45th President of the United States" and stop there, to be in line with articles on Clinton, Bush and Obama which say exactly the same thing in their opening sentence.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bush and Obama were politicians, Trump is also a businessman and television personality. Phrasing is exactly the same, but also includes other things he has done. Look at Reagan's, it includes the fact that he was an actor. Fbifriday (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, but for different rationale to Fbifriday. Many former presidents were businessmen. My rationale is that Trump is world-renowned as a businessman and a TV personality, and so they are necessary components of his description. My personal feeling is that "politician" should come first, but we had that argument consensus-building discussion already. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current consensus is the result of extensive discussion and is fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support The article should be consistent with similar articles, per WP:OSEPrincetoniac (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support-The article should, as Reagan's does, at least identify him as a "politician" before describing him as a television personality or businessman. The presidency is by far the biggest, most important, and most visible job that he has ever held or will hold. Display name 99 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The existing text is the result of extensive previous discussion and reflects the unique nature of the subject's life and career.- MrX 18:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The previous, extensive discussion is here: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 43#Lede/& Election section Each word was debated and the current formulation was the result. No changes should be made to the current formulation without having at least as extensive a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead: Merging 4th paragraph into 1st

Is there consensus for this change?

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he is the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's okay as-is. Seems like undue weight to put that material into the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Personally, I think it is a great idea. The presidency is now Trump's single greatest personal and professional achievement, and so it makes sense to move it into the first paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This artiole should be neutral in tone. The fourth paragraph is a disguised attack on Trump which is inappropriate for the lead. People will abuse this page constantly unless editors are vigilant to keep it similar to other Presidential biographiesCatherinejarvis (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  How is it an attack? It presents the facts in a neutral tone, as far as I can tell. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support with a caveat: Remove exact date of General Election, change "rival" to "nominee" and change "he is the oldest" to "He was the oldest" to bring it into present tense (since he has now already assumed the presidency) Fbifriday (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  I concur. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose keep it simple, 45th and current... Leave the oldest in the second paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The superlatives, firsts, and fifths, etc., don't need to be in the first paragraph. Current structure is good. As for keeping similar with any other articles, see WP:OSE. There is no community consensus for such consistency as a goal. Also, claims of "disguised attack" are baseless violations of WP:AGF and have no place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose moving the paragraph. In addition, there is a pending RfC on the wording summarizing the election; now is absolutely not the time to change it unilaterally. — JFG ^talk 18:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per JFG per pending RfC which hopefully will resolve soon. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny that Mandruss mentions WP:OSE. This policy says in the second sentence, "The encyclopedia should be consistent in the content it provides" which seems to be exactly catherinejarvis's point. If we can give a unique lead to President Trumps' article, people could argue that putting "adulterer" in Bill Clinton's first sentence is just as valid, since it is an undisputed fact and reflected in the main portion of his article. But of course none of us would agree to that. Putting "television personality" before President does, in fact, seem like a disguised dig at the President, as if it were more important. She has a point there.Princetoniac (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You are claiming an equivalence between television personality and adulterer? Really? I would call that a false equivalence. And many would say that the last term is the most important, not the first. Where is it written that such lists are in decreasing order of importance? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The first sentence tells who he is. The remaining paragraphs summarize the main points of the article, usually in chronological order. So it is appropriate that the election be the last paragraph in the lede, following all the other things he did in the first 70 years of his life. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Please add https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Trump to See also. Thanks. Derntno (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Added to External links section per WP:LAYOUT.- MrX 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And not once but twice! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I removed the duplicate entry. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove the "political positions" section?

No major American politician has a section like this except Donald Trump. There is an entire page dedicated to this, and this page is already incredibly long. This is supposed to be biography, not a Buzzfeed "short summary of his stands" article. In essence, it's just a redaction of the main Political positions of Donald Trump article. Who is for this/against this and why? Sandiego91 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – We write for WP:Readers first and a lot of readers are keenly interested in Trump's political positions. It would be utterly bizarre to have his biography talk more about Wrestlemania and The Apprentice than about Trump's economic and foreign policy! — JFG ^talk 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to remove some of that material also. Remember that this article long predates his presidency. That stuff looked important a few years ago; it looks a lot less so now. And we will be adding stuff to the article about his ACTIONS as president, not just his campaign positions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I'm inclined to agree with you. Maybe we could keep the section title, the referral to the main article, and the first general paragraph, but delete all the details from this page. I suggest we also delete the final "platform" paragraph from the lede. These things were was appropriate when he was a candidate, but they should now be replaced by a section along the lines of "Presidency of the United States" (borrowing from the Reagan article), and a final lede paragraph summarizing his notable actions as president. We should not do a major change like this without consensus, so let's see what others say. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Responding to JFG's point above: we should probably delay a week or two even if we decide to do this. It is quite likely that a lot of readers will be flocking to this article wanting to know more about this man who has just become President of the United States, and his political positions may be important to summarize here until his presidential priorities and positions become more clear. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Qualified support - The section should be dramatically shortened to a one paragraph summary of Political positions of Donald Trump (which needs attention, quite honestly). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Incumbent" in infobox

Please remove "Incumbent" from underneath Trump's picture. He is not an incumbent (being RE-elected), but rather he's new to the office. Thanks. Grattan33 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC) grattan33

Obama's article showed that word during his first term, and that seems consistent with the dictionary definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

I think that Queens, New York should be put in place after place of birth. Israeliano (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per #Current consensuses and RfCs, item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2017

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 WP:SNOW — JFG ^talk 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Donald Trump → Donald J. Trump – He's now the 45th president of the United States. He calls himself Donald J. Trump, he took the oath as Donald J. Trump, and I think we should call the article Donald J. Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Requested move

• Support page move to Donald J. Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If you must, please format as an RM per WP:RM#CM. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC) - Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. His WP:COMMONNAME is Donald Trump. --Tataral (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support page move to Donald J. Trump. Like other presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.161.74 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because they were commonly referred to as Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush. So were Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson. That was their WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Richard Nixon did not generally use their middle initial so our articles don't either. . --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and noting a false argument: he actually took his oath as Donald John Trump, using his full name as presidents usually do. He signs his name as Donald J. Trump; a lot of us use a middle initial in signatures that we don't use otherwise. But he campaigned as Donald Trump, his web pages say Donald Trump, and most importantly, Reliable Sources call him Donald Trump. As Tataral says, it is his WP:COMMONNAME. BTW Donald J. Trump is a redirect to Donald Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelanieN. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose nearly all media refer to him as Donald Trump. Hvn0413 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a full throated oppose because this does seem to be the more "official" name. But he is known overwhelmingly as "Donald Trump". Nohomersryan (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME policy. General Ization ^Talk 21:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME – and btw I have a feeling this has been discussed before, and before, and before… On Talk:Trump, every day is Groundhog Day. — JFG ^talk 21:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as others have said per WP:COMMONNAME. -NottNott|talk 21:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose His WP:COMMONNAME is "Donald Trump". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. He can call himself anything he wants, but that doesn't make that his common name. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose again. His WP:COMMONNAME is Donald Trump, even if he prefers to be referred to as Donald J Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: He gave the oath of office as Donald John Trump, not J. It's common practice to use the full name, including middle names, during the oaths. Why isn't Barack Obama's article named Barack H. Obama then? Itsyoungrapper (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: As others have said, his COMMONNAME is Donald Trump. Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: He was sworn-ed at inauguration as Donald Trump. ^{Snake bgd} 22:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—per WP:COMMONNAME; this should be WP:SNOW closed. —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Already discussed. Time to put it in the WeAlreadyDidThis list at the top. Objective3000 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this can be considered officially opposed. Calibrador (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2017 (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.

Dead link

The following link leads nowhere:

http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.

Can we find a replacement link? Greggydude (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Found and fixed.. You can almost always find a replacement link using the Wayback Machine. In this case, it's available here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The doc is now at https://www.lcv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/presidential-candidates-on-climate-change.pdf on the lcv site. However, I had to look through the source of the site to find it, and I'm not certain it is proper to link directly. Objective3000 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably best left with the Wayback link, since it won't die. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

On the infobox, change "New York City" to "New York City, New York, U.S." under the "Born" section. Misterpither (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

As a person interested in current events, I was wondering if I could add a bit more about the 2016 election. If Hillary Clinton, Jill Stien, and other presidential candidates Wikipedias are blocked, I will also request to edit them, as I feel that one of the most important pieces of one's life is their political career. I am not registered with any political party, and my election view point is one solely interested in programs or policies that are beneficial to our country. While I do not applaud Donald Trump's statements about women, I will not give my personal opinion about Mr. Trump, now Mr. President. What I will talk abut are the vigorous debates, the heated race for the presidency, and his come-from-behind victory. It is my hope that you will accept my request, so that anyone wanting to learn more about our 45th president will have a larger, and more reliable, rescource.Thank You, Benje (Mr. Choucroun)Benjec (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• What exactly are you looking to add?Fbifriday (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Residence

I am going to undo [edit], and add Trump tower back into his residences as a private residence, as there are several sources to state that he will use Trump Tower now that he's in office, and use this as a way to gain consensus. While assuming good faith, I believe the editor is imposing what he views to be correct without gaining consensus. I believe leaving Trump Tower up as his "official" residence, and putting Trump Tower as his "private" residence is accurate, because he has stated, and it has been reported by several sources, that he intends to return to Trump Tower regularly during his presidency. Fbifriday (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple websites and Twitter accounts in the infobox

I don't think we should have multiple websites and Twitter accounts in the infobox. It should be sufficient to list the Whitehouse website and the POTUS Twitter account. In fact, the recent RfC was clear that one additional social media accounts should be added. JFG has added these twice today, the second time over my objection.- MrX 00:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MrX, sorry for undoing your edit; this needs to be discussed indeed. Let me explain why: about an hour after the inauguration, I found that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed had been boldly replaced by the @POTUS feed, and I don't think this change of account was anticipated in the consensus discussion to include Trump's feed. So, in order to give room for discussion, instead of just reverting the change, I made both links visible. About the White House vs Presidential transition links: I didn't touch them earlier and I don't know who added a second site; I just reverted your deletion of the transition site, again because I think this requires discussion and there is no need to rush to judgment. — JFG ^talk 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When I added the whitehouse.gov site earlier, I left a comment on a talk topic that I was leaving the transition website because whitehouse.gov is pretty much empty right now, having just been reset from the Obama admin. All of the information about cabinet nominees, plans, confirmation hearings, etc, is on the transition website. Until the white house site is populated with more information, it is not a bad idea to keep the transition website up for those seeking info on the transition. As for twitter, I agree, his only official twitter now is POTUS, should be the only twitter up. Fbifriday (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My concern is about infobox bloat, and confusing readers. I think it's fine to keep the transition website for a little while, but only in the External links section. Since the transition is essentially over, I wouldn't expect it to be very useful to our readers. We added Twitter as an exception to WP:ELNO#Social because of President Trump's ongoing heavy use of it. I think including two Twitter feeds is excessive, and goes against the spirit of the consensus reached in the previous RfC.- MrX 01:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with leaving the transition website in external links but not in info box. And like I said, I agree with not having two twitters, just POTUS. It's his official twitter now, while he may use his personal account, the ones that comes from POTUS are the official tweets. Fbifriday (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is but one of reasons I don't think there should be any Twitter links in any infoboxes anywhere in WP. If a Tweet makes sense for WP to mention, use an RS referring to it. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Info box could use a better photograph of Donald Trump

The info box photograph of Donald Trump leaves much to be desired. He has a gloomy, doomsday look on his face. This photo should be replaced with a new photo of a happy, smiling, President. Anthony22 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's his official White House portrait. While I agree, I wish he'd smiled, it's his official portrait. Fbifriday (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm interesting conversation and word choice. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Whom did you have in mind.:) Objective3000 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

His facial expression in that picture is deliberate. If he had wanted a smiling portrait, he would have smiled. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I like it, I don't think it has a doomsday aspect but a serious, Clint Eastwood-like stare that means business. Stands out from all the doofus smiles (ie George Bush Sr) 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversies section

People far less controversial have sections dedicated to their controversies. Considering how many times "controvers" shows up in the text of this page, it should have one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2kun (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You addressed yourself why there isnt a specidic section on controversy: Its addressed throughout the article. Instead of creating a seperate heading for controversy, its better to have the controversy in each section, for better flow of reading. 66.87.114.244 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)(fbifriday on the mobile app, not signed in)

"Controversy" sections should be avoided. It's best to present controversies more naturally, as this article does. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)