Talk:Donald Trump

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

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

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

4. Lead phrasing of Trump gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College and receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide, without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value 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 Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn.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 1, link 2)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. The lead sentence is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

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

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

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

15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4)

Open RfCs

None.

Neither candidate won a popular majority

This edit (by an editor who also tried to discuss fascism accusations in the lead) is unwise. None of it is necessary or useful. And, User:Bodhi Peace seems determined to exclude from the lead that neither Trump nor Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote, which I think is essential information that has been included for months (i.e. the lead has indicated for months that Trump won less than Clinton's plurality).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Information included now. Was not aware of the importance of pointing out Clinton did not win a majority... just trying to avoid confusing language and unneeded use of the word "plurality". --Bod (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to say that Clinton did not win a majority. If she had, we would say Trump won the election although Clinton won a majority of votes. The reality is that few government leaders in the world win electoral majorities: David Cameron (37%), Justin Trudeau (39%), Angela Merkel (42%), Malcolm Turnbull (42%). But it is rare if they do not win the greatest number of votes. TFD (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

TFD, in the United States, the norm is that someone wins a majority of the national popular vote. See United States' presidential plurality victories. Even if the norm were otherwise, mentioning that Clinton did not win a majority indicates that she did not clobber Trump, which is extremely notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are strong third party candidates. It did not happen in 2000, 1996 or 1992. So the winner got a majority of votes in 3 out of the last 7 elections. Not the norm for the past 25 years. Saying that Trump did not win the most votes does not imply that Clinton "clobbered" him. TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It certainly leaves open that possibility, and why leave it open in the lead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the norm is that when the person with the second highest number of votes wins, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, that the loser did not clobber them in popular vote. The lead is supposed to summarize what happened not argue that Trump's election was or was not legitimate which no serious source challenges, unlike the 2000 election. TFD (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize what happened. And to say that Clinton won the popular vote, without giving any clue by how much, is a very poor summary that only indicates her achievement without indicating his achievement of holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe saying 'neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote' is relevant? The average reader probably knows Hillary won the popular vote, so to make this claim will confuse those readers. Doesn't saying, 'Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote,' say the same thing in a concise, not confusing way? Might it be better to say the election was close with Trump winning the electoral vote and Hillary winning a plurality of the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your last two questions, yes and yes. The problem is that some editors think the word "plurality" is too obscure or complicated for our readers. I think the word "plurality" is fine, and if readers don't know exactly what it means then they ought to learn. If we exclude the word "plurality" then we have to use a lot more words to expresss the same ideas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that "plurality" is a word very specific to the United States, and the English language Wikipedia is meant to cater to all English-speaking nations. The UK term "relative majority" means the same thing, but that isn't used by anyone else either. Perhaps this would be better:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

It's wordier, but it makes it clear Trump had a fairly easy EC win and that neither nominee received a majority. I don't like the recent changes to the article that have seen this material absorbed into the first paragraph, so this is provided in the earlier consensus form. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Your phrasing is clearer and more accessible. See MOS:INTRO ("Avoid difficult-to-understand terminology. Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be linked and briefly defined."), and Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary ("plurality. 1. Formal. A usually large number of things <The researchers studied a plurality of approaches>. 2. Chiefly US, technical. A number of votes ...").

MOS:TIES requires only that we not use specifically British or Canadian English in an article about an American president. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this proposal is that it leaves readers with the impression that Trump may be the first president who ever won the presidency while losing the popular vote. He is the fifth, as the lead currently explains. Other editors at this talk page have also indicated that we need to preserve the lead's longstanding statement that Trump is not the first in this regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Where does Scjessey's text suggest that Trump is the first president who ever did so? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not suggest that he is, it suggests that he may be, by deleting the lead's current statement that he is not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I don't think it needs to be in the lede, where brevity is preferred. It is already fully explained in the body of the article and that should be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree brevity is preferred in the lead. The material in the lead right now is briefer than your proposal, and it includes that Trump is not the first to win the votes of fewer people than his opponent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: But we must sacrifice brevity in favor of making things easily readable, and the fact remains that "plurality" is not well understood beyond the borders of the USA. Using a few extra words to spell it out is worth it, because "plurality" is borderline obfuscation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The word is used in 5,722 Wikipedia articles. Google News currently has 88,200 hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with the word. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Dervorguilla, this is an article about an American president. We cannot use British or Canadian terms. And the 'relative majority' is wide of the mark anyway. As for the edit suggestion, it is not at all clear to the reader that Donald Trump decisively won the presidency with a clear majority of the EC which is the vote that counts. I still say we must use the dreaded word 'plurality' and Anythingyouwant agrees with that. It is the American standard in presidential elections because it goes hand in hand with the EC vote. I also agree with Anytthing that readers can look up the word if they don't know it. We're not here to spoon feed the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: This isn't an American article. It is an English language article. It is important that we use language well understood by all English-speaking people. We aren't suggesting we use Canadian/British terms, we are simply saying we need to spell it out a little bit for the vast number of English speakers who are not Americans with a close interest in this incredibly specific political terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There are many varieties of English. American English is used for articles about Americans and American subjects, especially the American president. British English is used on articles about British subjects and people. I dare you to go over to a British subject article and start removing uniquely British terms. You will not be met with open arms. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is the edit as it stands now in the article:

1.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became 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.

This is Scjessey's suggestion:

2.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

The problem with #2 is this sentence: Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote.

Clinton never had an advantage with the popular vote. Trump broke the blue wall of Democrat states. Trump is the one with advantage with the popular vote. He played Moneyball, and started heavily campaigning in the states that had previously gone Democrat, had the biggest majority of out of work formerly middle class Democrats, and also had enough EC votes to put him over Hillary, no matter what she did in the other states. He won decisively. She won popular votes in heavily populated states like California, a state that holds a super majority of Democrats. She didn't even bother to campaign in California. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is complete bullshit. Clinton finished with an enormous, three million-vote lead in the popular vote. Ignoring that fact is ludicrous. Several "blue wall" states were decided by a tiny fraction of their total votes. You have repeatedly told this lie before on this talk page, and it needs to be called out for the mendacity it surely is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is my RS to support my comments. Now show us your RS to support your claim that Trump did not break the blue wall. He beat her where it counted. Like a drum.

• CNN: Trump Stomps All Over Democrats’ Blue Wall [3]
• Forbes: How the Blue Wall Cracked [4]
• Washington Post: Virginia for the Win: Breaking the Blue Wall [5]
• Investors Business Daily: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California: [6]
• New York Times Electoral Map: [7]

SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You'll say any ridiculous pro-Trump/anti-Clinton thing you can think of. Trump only won those blue states by the skin of his teeth. Just a few thousand votes here or there (a minuscule fraction of the total) and Clinton would've beaten Trump handily. But keep on living in your alternative reality if it makes you feel better. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Why do you personalize your comments against editors with these personal attacks instead of showing RS to support your claims? I've seen you do this to other editors here. Now, I've taken the time to seek out the RS. Yet, you come back with a personal attack. I don't live in an alternative reality, unless that reality includes CNN, The Washington Post, Forbes, the New York Times, and Investors Business Daily. Where's your RS? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources at United States presidential election, 2016 that tell the truth of the matter. The "blue wall" hinged on a tiny number of votes. The election was a squeaker, even if the Electoral College votes don't reflect that. And I wasn't making a personal attack at all. I was pointing out that you are wrong about the election result, and you've continued to propagate this wrongness for weeks and weeks now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Again you fail to supply specific sources to back your claims and again you make another personal attack claiming I "propagate this wrongness,' and have done so for 'weeks and weeks." You fail also to address the reliable sources I have supplied and instead again put in your POV about the outcome of the election. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming it to say I don't consider this version to be an improvement; quite the contrary. "Easily overcame" is POV and factually inaccurate. ("Squeaked by" would be more accurate.) Also, this version compares apples to oranges by listing the electoral college vote and the popular vote together in the same sentence as if they are comparable in significance; they are not. If you want to put something about the "Blue Wall" in the encyclopedia somewhere, I would suggest the article about the election. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree, 'easily overcame' is POV and factually inaccurate. Also agree with combo of electoral college and popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2 has problematic language. I'm not sure why you prefer "nominee". The use of "easily" and even "overcame" when it's more apples to oranges between the popular vote and the Electoral College. "To have done so" is not a necessary phrase as you can see in some of the rephrasing suggested below. Bod (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I may suggest

3.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump won the Electoral College, but became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the only one to have not served in military or government.

\\ Bod (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but the current version is preferable IMHO. First of all, it's not correct that Trump became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. For example, Bill Clinton got less of the popular vote in 1992 than Perot's and Bush's share of the popular vote. More importantly, this proposed version emphasizes Hillary Clinton's accomplishment in getting more of the popular vote, but omits Trump's very substantial accomplishment in holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

4.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither had a majority of the popular vote, but Trump won the Electoral College and became the fifth US president to not get a plurality of the national popular vote. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the first who had not served in military or government.

Plurality seems unavoidable. \\Bod (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect again. Many presidents did not get a plurality because they instead got a majority. The present version is much more concise and accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

5.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. On January 20, 2017, at age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior government or military service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the national popular vote.

\\Bod (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This emphasizes Hillary Clinton's achievement in getting more of the popular vote, but omits Trump's achievement in holding her to less than a majority. The current version implies she won a plurality rather than a majority, so I think the current version is preferable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: "...but omits Trump's achievement in holding her to less than a majority." What achievement? That's not an achievement. Third party candidates were able to prevent Trump or Clinton from getting a majority, but to suggest Trump held back Clinton's vote is absurd. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bodhi, I agree with Anythingyouwant on all those suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

Bodhi, I appreciate your repeated attempts to meet people's comments by modifying your proposal. It appears we are trying to cover three points here: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. (Note: not "popular votes"; the term "popular vote" is collective.) I think we should NOT try to do all that in a single sentence, because a single sentence requires a connecting word like "but" or "despite," which seems to cast doubt on his election. What we need: First sentence in the paragraph says he won. Later we say she received more votes nationwide than he did, but neither received a majority of the popular vote. The current version in the article conveys the first two points well and with appropriate weight but leaves out "neither got a majority". Your version is virtually identical with the current version except it substitutes "not winning" instead of "not a plurality", but we had been trying to avoid the word "win" with regard to the popular vote. Maybe we shouldn't be picky about that; while "win" of the popular vote is not strictly accurate (it's not a contest with a "winner"), maybe it conveys the point better than than "plurality". I would accept either this version #5 or the current version. I'm coming to think we shouldn't try to get "nobody got a majority" into the lede, but leave it for the election section. I think we came to that same conclusion before and I'm getting there again. MelanieN alt (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, please note that the current version concisely implies that neither candidate got a popular majority. That is, by saying that Trump got less than a plurality, the current version implies that HRC got a plurality, which of course is less than a majority. So, I favor the current version, and agree with you that it's unnecessary to explicitly say in the lead that neither of them got a popular majority. But, if the word plurality is removed, then I do think it would be important for the lead to mention not just her accomplishment in getting more of the popular vote, but also his accomplishment in holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To put it another way, I think the lead currently does all three things you mention: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. Plus it indicates 4) that Trump is not the first president to get less popular support. All in just 14 words!Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, we still need to remove the (unnecessary) "at age 70" because it confusingly makes it sound like his wealth is dependent on his age. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove "at age 70". Since it has been there a long time we will need consensus to remove it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it as a big deal, but am okay with removing "at age 70." People can look at his birth date and do the math. Does anyone care if we also change "less than a plurality" to "less than his opponent's plurality"? And change "the fifth" to "one of the few presidents"? The latter acknowledges that Hayes did not get a plurality in 1876, that Nixon may have gotten a plurality in 18761960, and that no one knows what happened before 1824.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with "less than his opponent's plurality" which is totally unclear. And I think we should retain "fifth". I don't think any Reliable Source has said "a few" or "several" or any other attempt to dodge the issue. They said either fourth or fifth, depending how they counted 1824. (Nixon? 1876???) MelanieN alt (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of "less than his opponent's plurality" I think it's adequate (and clearer) to say "less than the plurality" (i.e. not "less than a plurality").Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It should say either "at least the fourth" or "at least the fifth" or "the fifth since 1824". Bod (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with "at least the fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It makes it sound like he was inaugurated on his birthday. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it is fine to remove his age, although it isn't a big deal. The best way to accurately capture all the information, without unnecessary implications is to say that "Hillary got a plurality of the popular vote". This shows that she was a) the top vote-getter b)less than a majority so c)Trump was less than majority and less than a plurality. Adding a simple "the" helps to break up the connection between oldest and wealthiest. It should be "government service" and it should lead with that because "military" is a subset of that.

6.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest, and the wealthiest, person to assume the presidency and the first without prior government or military service. Clinton received a plurality of the national popular vote, making Trump the fifth president elected with less than a plurality since 1824.

\\ Bod (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It repeats plurality twice. That's a bit redundant, don't you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes but if you're up for a real challenge try to rewrite it with just one "plurality". --Bod (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's simple: drop the reference to Clinton. Just saying that Trump did not win a plurality means Clinton won it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support status quo which, by the way, is already "rewritten" with just one "plurality". Illustrating my view that at a certain point continued "improvement" creates as many problems as it solves. I see nothing seriously wrong with the current language; let it be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What about the "at age 70" issue I mentioned? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Not a serious problem to remove that, not a serious problem to keep it. I disagree that it implies a causal relationship between age and wealth. I think one has to think really hard to see that as a realistic potential problem—English prose is often imprecise and readers generally don't spend time analyzing it to that degree. The facts are correct—there are no grammatical errors—it is not unnecessarily verbose—I think that gets us past the point of diminishing returns. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Mandruss:. We've reached the point where these 'improvements' are beginning to create more problems than they can solve. The text is fine as is and I support ending this. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose "since 1824" since it immediately makes the reader wonder: "what happened before 1824? Was it commonplace before that? Why did they say that?" If we must include it, we should say "since records began to be kept in 1824". I would prefer to leave it out. Reliable Sources don't seem to have a problem with saying "fifth". MelanieN alt (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fifth is simply fake news. Various sources say fourth.[8]. Did anyone win a plurality of the popular vote in 1876? No. Not Tilden and not Hayes (and not Nixon!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your source says Hayes lost the popular vote. Bod (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He did lose the popular vote. And Tilden won a majority of the popular vote. No one won a plurality of the popular vote. A plurality is "when a candidate or proposition polls more votes than any other, but does not receive a majority." That describes neither Tilden nor Hayes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

All that doesn't matter if the one elected had less than a plurality. Bod (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You really think that President Hayes was elected in 1876 with "less than the plurality" of the popular vote? No one won a plurality that year. If we change "fifth" to "fourth" then we convey a huge amount of information accurately, including that Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"less than the plurality" suggests the existence of a plurality, but "less than a plurality" does not imply the existence of a plurality as opposed to a majority. Bod (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Right. That's why the BLP presently says "less than the plurality". This informs the reader that Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. Unlike Tilden in 1876.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe 8% of the readers... Bod (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And it currently says "fifth" and "the". Bod (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Right. It should instead say "fourth" and "the".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with SW3 and Mandruss: We have now made the one improvement that seemed to have consensus, namely, removing "since age 70". Other than that I think we should keep the established consensus sentence. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: I had thought we had a consensus over that removal, but the edit was reverted by Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs). Do we have an agreement on this or not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not read this discussion. I was going off the comment in the page markup and the "Current consensus" section at the top of this page. If consensus has changed, I suggest changing the comment and/or point 15 above to prevent this kind of misunderstanding. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the "current consensus" section is a well-intentioned, but ultimately flawed idea. At the Barack Obama article, we had a system using an FAQ in the talk page header that worked very well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

I'm going to go ahead and remove "at age 70" again, since nobody has objected. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no real consensus here to make these changes and now you've got it poorly worded. It's a mess and I reverted it. Have a proper consensus but to pick away at it with these small, poorly constructed word changes and then to add in the redundant Clinton bit again is not consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SW3 5DL (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where was there consensus to change from "fourth" to "fifth" in the lead?

When the RFC started, the lead used the word "fourth".[9] Where was there consensus to change that? The article body says "fourth", and "fifth" is simply wrong (because the election of 1876 does not count as an instance where the election winner got less than the plurality of the popular vote). If no objection, I will revert to "fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, let me look at it. I thought "fifth" was more accurate and that the disputed one was 1824. I'll check it out and get back to you. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia article on the subject, United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, counts it as five. Are you saying that is incorrect, and that Wikipedia should contradict itself on this point? Yes, it's true that in 1876 someone was made president by Congress rather than by actual electoral majority. That happened in 1824 too. But the point we are making is, four previous people have become president (by whatever means) even though someone else got a larger share of the popular vote. And Trump is the fifth. I was pretty sure this article said "fifth" in the text also, but I'm not going to research the history. IMO it should say "fifth" both places. I know we have discussed this before and I thought we had agreed on that point, although we never had a formal RFC. Since then some people have argued for "at least the fifth" because we have no data before 1824. I don't like that but I will accept it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: The article body says "fourth": As a matter of fact, the article text DID say "fifth", until you changed it to "fourth" earlier today. [10] So it is kind of a weak (some would say dishonest) argument for you to point out that the article body says "fourth", don't you think? MelanieN alt (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No. User:MelanieN, the footnote to that sentence (which I did not insert) says fourth.[11]. Moreover, you have not pointed to any consensus to change fourth to fifth in the lead. This is not rocket science. It is correct that Trump is the fifth person to become president while getting less of the popular vote than someone else. It is also correct that he is the fourth person to become president while getting a majority of the electoral college but less of the popular vote than his opponent (because JQ Adams did not get a majority of the electoral college). Additionally, it is also correct that Trump is the fourth person to become president while getting less than the plurality of the popular vote (because no one got a plurality in 1876). The lead is currently false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand, the article that the sentence links to is United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote which has 5 entries. Donald is #5 there so why would he be #4 here? ValarianB (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think we have the answer to your question "where was the consensus?" to say fifth. If you look at consensus #15 at the top of the page, where multiple changes were proposed but did not achieve consensus so the pre-RfC version was retained, there is a link that compares the proposed version with the pre-RfC version. BOTH versions - pre-existing and proposed - say "fifth".[12]. That makes it pretty clear that although some of the proposed changes did not have consensus, "fifth" was generally accepted - was not even in contention. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, it said "fourth" when the RFC began on 8 January. You are correct that it said "fifth" on 11 February, but it said "fourth" the day before. There was never any consensus for the edit to change it to fifth on 10 February. And the editor who made that edit later changed his mind and attempted to remove "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

All of that is largely besides the point. Donald Trump says 4th, United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote says 5th. Both cannot be correct, so figure out which one is correct and make them match. This shouldn't be a contentious issue. ValarianB (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, it shouldn't. 😳Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The only reason it is contentious is that some Reliable Sources initially said fourth. It appeared they weren't counting 1824, possibly because one person got pluralities in BOTH the electoral college and the popular vote but lost in Congress - and they were only counting people who won the popular vote but not the electoral college. Anyhow the article on the subject clearly says five people became president even though someone else got more of the popular vote, which is what we are talking about here. The article explains in detail why each of the five qualifies to be in that category. So it seems our default should be fifth, unless someone can clearly and persuasively explain why one of the five counts at the main article but doesn't count here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The bit of minutiae you are missing is in 1876 when there was no plurality vote, only a minority and a majority. So the person pushing for "fourth" wants to make it clear that when you say "the plurality", it lumps all the elections that had plurality votes with that one where there was a majority vote. Thus, it misses the nuance that Clinton was held to less than a majority (which would be reflected in that one little phrase if it said "fourth"). However, very few people would understand that IMO. Bod (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's important we correctly report what's in reliable sources, regardless of how many people notice the difference. And, User:MelanieN has not pointed to anything in the Wikipedia article on this subject that says anyone won a plurality in 1876, much less that Hayes won less than that plurality. Nor has Melanie shown where there was any consensus to change "fourth" to "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There are clearly five cases in the Wikipedia article "United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote"... so you are really arguing how when the phrase uses "plurality" the number should be changed to four. Bod (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Fifth" is correct. Why are you arguing about this? See United States presidential election, 1876, Tilden won more popular votes than Hayes. Tilden won the majority of the popular vote (unlike Clinton who won the plurality, but Hayes, like Trump, still received less than a plurality). Hayes won the majority of the electoral votes (just like Trump). What is the dispute here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about Reliable Sources. Here is what they say:

• ”Only five US presidents in history have been elected despite losing the popular vote: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump this November.”[ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-lost-popular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-a7470116.html]
• “For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote.”[ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/20/why-electoral-college-landslides-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/]
• ”…a margin of 233,404 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election.”[ http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/shades-of-2000-clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally]
• ”Clinton is the fifth presidential candidate in American history to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College.”[ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-popular-vote-20161222-story.html]
• Here is one source (Vox, and I can see why some people doubt it is a reliable source) which says fourth, but then cites five examples – somehow forgetting about 1824 after mentioning it. [13] They later, in a correction, explain that they didn’t count 1824 because the person who became president lost the not just the popular vote but the electoral college as well. That seems a rather arcane quibble. And so does the "plurality" argument Anything is making above. Show me where a preponderance of Reliable Sources (or even a few) say that 1876 doesn't count, and we'll talk. And without Reliable Sources making that point, the 1876 argument appears to be WP:Original research contradicted by most sources. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The election of 1876 was sui generis in that the loser got a majority of the popular vote. That's not what happened to Hillary Clinton, because she did not get a majority of the popular vote, so it's fine for us to not lump Clinton and Tilden together as if the same thing happened to them. "Tilden was the only presidential candidate to lose a general election despite securing a popular-vote majority...."[14]

"Tilden was the only loser to win a popular vote majority...."[15] "The election of 1876 is the only election in the history of the United States in which a candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote and did not get to be president...."[16]. I therefore disagree with lumping Clinton and Tilden together. Moreover, if we decide to lump them together in the lead (which we need not do) then it ought to be described correctly instead of falsely implying that Tilden won a plurality of the popular vote. He didn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The point we are trying to get across (and the point made by most Reliable Sources) is what Anything said above: It is correct that Trump is the fifth person to become president while getting less of the popular vote than someone else. Should we just say that? It is only quibbles about the wording that reduce the number to fourth. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would not favor that, as I explained a couple comments up (at 21:30, 17 February 2017). It also fails to say (or imply) that neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote, which is something that you previously said "we are trying to cover".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reducing the number to "fourth" because of unexplained technicalities doesn't say that either. He is the fifth person to become president while getting a lesser share of the popular vote than someone else. That is the point. If you are not happy with current wording (it seems this is another reason to dislike "plurality"), let's find a better way to say that. Possibly what you said and I have quoted. --MelanieN alt (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It said "fourth" when the RFC began, and the person who changed it to "fifth" after the RFC closure later changed his mind.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking again at the current sentence in the article: "the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote. " Why is that not correct? All five of them received less than a plurality, didn't they? The fact that in one case the other candidate got an actual majority does not change the fact that all five people who became president did so with less than a plurality of the popular vote. --MelanieN alt (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You've misquoted what the BLP currently says. It says, "the fifth elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote." No one got a plurality in 1876.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As for that reference (or as you called it, footnote) in the text that says "fourth", I mentioned it above. It is an outlier, from Vox, which said "fourth" in the headline, lists five people who became president without gaining a plurality/majority of the popular vote, and then in a later clarification explains why it only counted four of them - because it was talking about winning the electoral college. But the point we wish to make is about becoming president, not winning the electoral college. Apples and oranges. So for a sentence about becoming president while getting a lesser share of the popular vote than someone else, we need to replace the Vox reference (which is talking about a subset of the group we are talking about) with a reference that is actually talking about becoming president - not just winning the electoral college. BTW the reason that reference gives (excluding 1824) is different from the reason that makes you want to say "fourth" (excluding 1876). I don't see any reference in the article that supports that point. --MelanieN alt (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave three reliable sources above (at 21:30, 17 February 2017) that show it's mixing apples and oranges to compare what happened in 1876 to any other election.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Now you could say "Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote" or "Clinton got a plurality vote, and Trump became the fourth person to ever become president after his opponent got a plurality of the popular vote". Bod (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Either of those would probably work for me (though the word "received" might be better than "got"). It would be simpler, though, to just change "fifth" back to "fourth." I'm very tempted to do so unilaterally, because there was no consensus to change "fourth" to "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Now this sentence is vague and inconsistent.

Trump received a smaller share of the popular vote than Clinton, and he is at least the fourth person to become president in such circumstances.

Bod (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Since this is so contentious, why not just say "one of few elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote" instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (though I would put "the" before "few").Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it, but I will accept it if there is consensus for it. But there's a problem, since we seem to be into quibbles absolute precision here: it's inaccurate because two of the previous four were not "elected" (unless you count selection by Congress as "elected"). How about "one of only a few people to become president with less than the plurality of the national popular vote" That's just an attempt to make this alternative a little more palatable, I still prefer the current wording. Maybe even better Bodhi's proposed wording above, "Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote". And I strongly object to changing "fifth" to "fourth", since "fifth" is used by dozens of Reliable Sources and "fourth" by only a few. (And "fourth" requires explanation as to which one we aren't counting and why.) --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't like it either, you're suggesting imprecise language to describe a numerical fact. Donald Trump is the 5th, as noted by the sources. TheValeyard (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump is not the fifth billionaire president or the fifth president with a daughter named Ivanka. When you say "fifth" you have to consider the fifth what. And there definitely is uncertainty, including who got more popular votes in 1960 and before 1824. Anyway, I'm fine with "Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote". I don't recall anyone objecting to this, though my preference would be to change "fifth" back to "fourth" (or a "few").Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Anything, I was not happy with your sudden, unilateral revision[17] to the article. Ironically, just a few edits earlier you had reverted a single-word edit of Bodhi’s with the edit summary “Better to keep this stable while it's under discussion”. Now you have put a sentence and a footnote into the article that you never even proposed here before adding it. Where is the supposed consensus for “few”? Scjessey proposed it; you accepted it; I didn’t like it but said I would accept it if there was consensus; The Valeyard didn’t like it; the discussion lasted less than 6 hours. That is not a consensus in anyone’s book. Incidentally, Scjessey proposed “few” because “this is so contentious” but it is really a one-person contention; you are the only person objecting to “fifth”.

However, I see that shortly after inserting the “few” sentence (and without removing it) you indicated you would accept Bodhi’s proposed sentence ‘’“Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote."’’ Everyone else who saw that sentence accepted it too, so I am going to put in that sentence in place of the “few” version. That still does not make it a permanent, binding consensus because it is based on an informal discussion among a few people. Whatever version we retain as a result of this discussion, we should not list it as a “consensus” version at the top of this talk page unless more people participate over a longer period of time. But it’s enough of a consensus to leave in the article during discussion.

Now let’s discuss your footnote to the text section. I believe we should delete from the footnote the sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [18] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Both Anything’s revision and mine have been reverted as “no consensus”. I actually agree with that. See the section below “Changes without consensus; time to move on.” Also please see the section “New footnote in article“ to discuss the footnote added to the Election to the presidency section of the article. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Early life / Education

These two sections are bare-bones. Like, less than 500 words for the first 22 years of someone who is presently the most powerful person on Earth. Is this era off limits somehow?

Back in the 1960s, being "packed off to military school" was generally a punishment, for incorrigible (unruly, law-breaking, violent, promiscuous, etc.) behaviour, sort of a "last chance" before reform school or prison. (The only other reason to go to military school was with West Point or Annapolis or similar as a goal.)

This is skimmed lightly over by referring to Trump as "energetic" and sorta making his parents sound like hippies wanting him "to channel his energy in a positive manner." But anyone who's actually read The Art of the Deal knows that Trump said when he was in second grade he punched him music teacher, and he has never made a secret of picking fights, intentionally breaking rules, and defying his parents, which would explain how they decided to enroll him sixty miles away at NYMA. When Donald was 17, Fred calls him "rough," and that's where it stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeb Dingle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Weeb Dingle: WP:SOFIXIT. Nothing is off limits. Be bold. Make sure to back any additions with reliable sources (no tabloids, not your own opinion) and honor WP:BLP (no gratuitous, unfounded smears). If you can dig out reliable testimonies that Donald Trump was a teenage brat, that's fair game. — JFG ^talk 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nothing" is off limits? Really? Is that why this morning somebody had seen fit to write "false" at the top of the article? By the time I was able to log on five minutes later somebody else had already removed it, so that I did not have to. But should this article not be locked, given that the subject is rather contentious at the moment? People who are less contentious, in terms of their global reach, have had their articles locked. Alrewas (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I made the edit where the word "false" appeared in the article. It was not my intention and I have no idea how the word was included when I was making a BLP assertion. The BLP assertion remains and the claim in the Lede must accurately reflect the discussion in the body of the article which I do not think it does. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

User Veriss1 has been banned from this article for one week,[19] for editing against consensus #7. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alrewas: The article is currently under WP:30/500 protection, which is sufficient. It has been occasionally locked for a few hours on eventful days, e.g. during the inauguration. Believe it or not, there is actually very little vandalism these days! The documentation and enforcement of consensus wordings helps stem the tide of perennial change requests for a number of ideas which have been widely debated and settled. Feel free to edit and discuss. — JFG ^talk 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that and vigilant admins who revert and block right away. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Of particular note is the fact that Trump frequently mentions his time at Wharton. Despite previously challenging the academic record of Barack Obama, Trump has not personally revealed details of his own academic record. In fact, a 1968 Commencement Program shared online two days ago seems to prove that he graduated without honours: http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/02/trump-academics-at-wharton BertyRussell (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The section about his Vietnam service does not belong here. It should be a separate section per Bill Clinton's article Gaas99 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert of "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database"

I'm told by Mandruss that my edit adding "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database" that Mandruss and earlier Sundayclose reverted should be discussed on the talk page—so here goes:

• Sundayclose reverted on February 6, 2017 with reasoning: "No need to single out SNL for an external link"
• My response after a few days was today to "put back imdb of Donald Trump (Character)-SNL is 1 of 120 instances in the list..."

That's quite a list that I think adds to the page. If we delete that then perhaps "Donald Trump at the Internet Movie Database" could go as some may not like something someone said etc etc. I've added "... (Character)" references at many pages and don't recall any problems. What say the community? DadaNeem (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I also took issue with Sundayclose's edit summary, and for the same reason, as seen at User talk:Mandruss/Archive 5#Trump. I take the ArbCom remedies seriously, I do my best to enforce them whether that serves my position or not, and they clearly say that disputed edits must have talk page consensus. And disputing the rationale for removal is not necessarily the same as opposing the removal. I generally abstain from External links issues since they seem relatively unimportant to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Health section

I removed a paragraph that discussed President Trump's mental health based on a letter to the editor of the New York Times. [20]. Aside from the HIPAA laws, which would prevent a real doctor from making this claim, if any of that were actually true, making the statement that "Donald Trump is not mentally ill." and then going on to explain that he's a narcissist is still a BLP violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If it was a BLP violation, the editor who added it should be warned. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently an admin believed it was a BLP vio, and revdel'd his edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Relates to source:

• [21]

I posted:

[REDACTED]

There is a great deal of scuttlebutt going around about Trump's mental condition. This seems to answer most of that stuff in an authoritative way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fred, I'm frankly surprised that you believe that what you added would be appropriate for a WP:BLP. The paragraph is referenced to a single source (a letter from a psychiatrist - who has never even met Mr Trump as far as I can tell - to a newspaper) and is being used to introduce the allegation that "he is narcissistic". Simply to say that his (alleged) narcissism doesn't rise to a personality disorder does not make it balanced. Your proposed paragraph also slides in that "some people" (who?) may consider his behaviour "harmful". This further allegation is unreferenced and far from neutral coverage. The paragraph isn't answering "most of that stuff" in an authoritative way, it's a thinly disguised character assassination. It was correctly reverted and deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, is what you posted above verbatim of what had to be deleted from the article's history? If so then it seems to be very bad decision-making on your part to post it again. Also, I restored User SW3 5DL's choice of subject line, there was no need for you to alter that. ValarianB (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. Posting it again on this talk page after it had been rev-deleted is spectacularly nonsensical. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page.I'm trying to find an admin to revdel it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is NO way we are going to accept sensitive health information based on a letter to the editor for heavens sake, much less from an armchair psychiatrist, that is, someone who is just speculating and has never examined the person. For that matter we would only accept it from someone who HAD examined them if they had the person's permission to reveal it. Don't post this again. (Sorry, folks, I can't do the revdel because I don't have tools on this account.) MelanieN alt (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the first point, what the hell are you on about with "arm-chair psychiatrist"? Diagnosis is absolutely possible without "examining the patient", (with the caveat that this does not apply to all diagnoses) — and that is exceedingly clear in DSM-V. With that in mind I find it ludicrous that someone with no experience whatsoever in the field throws out inane criticism of legitimate sources by calling them "arm-chair psychiatrists". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Goldwater rule. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that has no bearing on diagnosing someone based upon their behavior as assessed indirectly. The Goldwater rule is an esoteric ethical rule that only exists in the US, and has nothing to do with the validity of the diagnosis. Wikipedia has no reason to abide by the Goldwater rule, no policy that suggests we should refrain from reporting what international and non-APA-affiliated psychiatrists say — or even that we refrain from reporting what is said by APA-members in violation of that rule. Of note is that there has been significant debate about whether to rescind the rule within the APA because it doesn't make sense and acts to chastise professionals from speaking out on important issues. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on Bishonen's talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A statement that most politicians are narcissistic is so obvious it does not need a reference. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, having looked at the narcissism page, I don't see that the use of the word in a standalone context necessarily means that the word is being used in the strictly "DSM' sense, which is covered separately in the narcissistic personality disorder article. Simple "narcissism" probably wouldn't deserve to be included in the "health" section, however, although I don't see right now where it would necessarily reasonably be included, which would probably be more of a "personality" section. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, narcissism ≠ narcissistic personality disorder. Neither is it necessary to examine a person face to face in order to diagnose them — that is evident in the DSM-V defintion of NPD. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion of the Goldwater rule is here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but even that article only sees it through the very narrow lens of American politics. Outside the US psychopathography is a valid field, and while you may or may not agree with the ethical underpinnings of the Goldwater rule, it does not detract from how psychiatric diagnosis is possible (with certain caveats) without direct interaction with a subject. We as Wikipedia are not bound by the rule, and while it may be pertinent to discuss it in articles: invoking it to silence otherwise valid sources is per definition WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. We should always strive to show both sides of the argument, and the question here is not whether we can discuss Trump's mental health or not per BLP (we can), but whether it is possible to do so in a neutral manner with high quality sources — and whether it is due. With the wealth of sources discussing it, I find that question to be very simple: Yes it is worth a mention. Possibly something along the lines of:

Donald Trump's mental health has been called into question by psychiatrists and mental health professionals — some going so far as to apply diagnoses such as narcissistic personality disorder. However other professionals contest this, suggesting any such categorization is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater rule, and thus would be both unethical as well as incorrect.

This paragraph is objectively not controversial. The debate here should be about whether such a section is due: not whether or not one likes it; whether one takes issue with violation of the Goldwater rule; or whether one believes either party is correct. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a distinct dearth of links to quality reliable sources in this discussion. It may be best for editors to provide some before continuing. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The comment appears to be an attempt to bring into the article questions about the president's mental health. That is a BLP violation. Any speculation offered by unethical doctors looking for publicity at the expense of the president does not belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There is so much value judgement in that sentence — and it entirely ignores so many policies. I will again repeat the two points to consider:

• Are there reliable sources? — Answer is: Yes
• Is it due? This is what we need to debate

Whether we see the doctors as unethical and evil, or even supremely altruistic and courageous (standing up to a bizarre rule) is beside the point, and engaging in discussion about that is only like to polarize the field and make everything worse. If you absolutely want to vote, base your argument on policies or sources, not on ad hominem attacks of the authors or sources.

WP:SHOUTING BLP is entirely pointless on an article on a public figure as well known as the freaking president of the United States... The following policy passage from BLP encapsulates it very well:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE covers it, please go there before drawing such extreme conclusions SW3 5DL. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources discussion the issues with varying conclusions:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html?_r=0
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/health/views/24mind.html
• http://www.inquisitr.com/2870145/malignant-and-psychopathic-donald-trump-expert-studies-600-hours-of-trump-footage/
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychiatrists-debate-weighing-in-on-trumps-mental-health/
• www.businessinsider.com/al-franken-trump-mental-health-republican-senators-2017-2?op=1
• www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html
• https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/30/trump-mental-health/
• https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychiatrists-cant-tell-us-what-they-think-about-trump/
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38991171
• http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/therapists-are-debating-over-donald-trumps-mental-health-commentary.html
• http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319130-franken-gop-colleagues-question-trumps-mental-health
• http://gothamist.com/2017/02/13/trump_mental_illness.php
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/08/stop-calling-trump-crazy/?utm_term=.ce51fb3d407e
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/07/the-american-psychiatric-association-reminds-its-doctors-no-psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/?utm_term=.987eba74a2f8
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-suggests-donald-trump-get-his-mental-health-checked_us_5893aa48e4b0c1284f250e44

And that is from a 5-minute search and from the first pages of a couple of result-pages. There are far more sources, and likely some that are much more reliable, so don't go around saying that this discussion violates BLP… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note also the following:

• http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/02/is-it-okay-to-speculate-about-donald-trumps-mental-health.html
• https://www.salon.com/2017/02/14/distorting-reality-politicians-mental-health-experts-say-theyre-worried-about-donald-trump/
• https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/15/rep_ted_lieu_to_introduce_bill
• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-president-hates-his-new-job/517029/
• https://www.inverse.com/article/26585-psychology-donald-trump-crazy-addiction-jokes
• http://thehill.com/homenews/house/318554-lawmaker-to-propose-a-bill-requiring-a-white-house-psychiatrist
• http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/12/media/andrew-sullivan-donald-trump-mental-health/
• https://theweek.com/articles/676734/heres-what-mental-health-experts-think-president-trumps-behavior
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/shrinks-break-silence-president-trump-exhibits-traits-m-article-1.2957688
• http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/02/donald_trumps_rage_reactions_l.html
• https://www.salon.com/2017/02/14/distorting-reality-politicians-mental-health-experts-say-theyre-worried-about-donald-trump/

Now we can evidently see that the subject exists in reliable sources, can we stick to the issue of whether or not it is WP:DUE instead of discussing the supposed and evidently non-existant violations of BLP which includes WP:PUBLICFIGURE, or various shortcomings of my character because I noted that similarly strong lists of sources exist calling Trump a fascist, or someone showing fascist tendencies? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• • I have to note that the post above with a load of opinionated reports was posted by User:CFCF - a user that also recently tried and failed to get Trump listed as a Fascist diff - as we can see, it is simply more of the same policy violating non neutral WP:BLP violating attack content - Users should support policy from a neutral position. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note whatever you want, that doesn't make it true or at all relevant. I supported and still support including a mention of the myriad of sourcing discussing Trump's alleged fascist positions. How that would affect credibility when most of the major news sources have discussed it is frankly ridiculous. The BBC, NY-Times, WaPo, Politico, FP and others all discussed the issue, and it is frankly a violation of WP:NPOV not to include that information when 50+ sources discuss it, but I digress. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Digress as much as you like but do not hide it. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit removing the {{Collapse top}} was in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, & WP:ADHOMINEM. I will also note for the record that there was no "failure" in including the section, I simply did not have the time to draft an RfC, and there may yet be mention of it. However this is unrelated to the discussion at hand, and this thread should be {{hat}}-ed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: At issue is what, if any, content should be included under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Your opinions about any other editor's motives or biases have no place on this page. Review WP:AGF and play the ball not the man. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually they were deemed to have a place as Carl Fredrik's ANI complaint was closed as a unanimous failure. If an editor is repeatedly making bad and potentially BLP-violating suggestions to a BLP article, then it is within any editor's purview to review his/her actions. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Wrong on multiple counts. Happy to discuss on my talk page if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No,I am quite right on all counts, and I have no desire to shunt the discussion to a non-public space, thanks. You are wrong, as evidenced by the closing of the ANI against Carl Fredrik wit a warning that repercussions would come his way if he continued. You aren't going to bully people who speak up against wrong-doing users into silence. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, the general-purpose "bully" accusation against editors who have no more strength or authority than you so can't possibly be bullying you. Experienced users know better. The question of whether this is blpvio is the subject of this discussion and the one at WT:BLP; you don't get to unilaterally declare it so, attack another editor, and disrupt article talk because some ANI complaint resulted in a warning. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Experienced users" already decided the matter, when the user in question tried to unilaterally hide comments that he did not like. TTFN. :) ValarianB (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"No violation found" ≠ failure. There were also a number of editors on this page that agreed that the section was not relevant to the discussion at hand — and it is turning less and less relevant by the minute. I will not hesitate to file another report against other users who engage in ad hominem and discussing issues that are irrelevant to the talk page. We so far only had engagement by one uninvolved editor, and that in no way makes out what is considered a definitive decision. Neither did anyone take into account the discretionary sanctions present on this talkpage.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• The core of this issue is whether something like this qualifies to be in an article, or whether it is a BLP violation. I have posted the question at the BLP talk page to get additional opinions on this question. Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Mental health of a subject. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As you say, the core of the issue is WP:DUE — and I won't argue either way as I've already stated my opinion. However WP:BLP section WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes this type of mention entire uncontroversial, and I have a hard time believing the BLP notice-board would come to any other conclusion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Its against multiple wikipedia policy policy and guidelines. It is simple partisan non wp:npov and wp:blp violating additions, sad to see an admin User:Fred Bauder adding content that requires rev deleting. If an administrator does not respect and or understand wp:policy and guidelines then he should resign. - Health concerns are simply that, has he had official health concerns that have been treated by doctors, no - opinionated chit chat about his mental heath whether reported in "reliable sources" should not be repeated here by experienced contributors in a living persons biography, we are requested to report conservatively and with caution. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV specifically states that both sides of an argument be heard, not that biased or non-neutral points not be heard. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife" to even mention it. Sharon Begley for Stat (the sixth or seventh source above) asked 10 psychiatric professionals and published their conclusion: President Trump is quite sane. But in the Health section you could mention Trump has to take finasteride. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet are planning to invoke the 4th section of the 25th Amendment? I don't see any reason for adding such information on mental health speculation. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason you would include statements by psychs (remote-diagnosing) stating someone does *not* have a condition is if you were including statements by psychs (remote-diagnosing) stating they *did* have them. Since we are not doing the second, we do not need to rebut non-existant accusations with the first, otherwise its clearly UNDUE material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• At the BLP talk page I posted the following, neutrally worded question: "I would like a general opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to include commentary about, or evaluation of, a public figure’s mental health – provided the commentary is done by professionals in the field and reported in Reliable Sources. The case in point is this discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Health section." I made sure to specify "professionals in the field" and "reliable sources" since that seems to be the basis for Carl Fredrik's argument that we should include it. So far four people have responded. All four said: no, it is not appropriate. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That really doesn't matter one iota. You are also misrepresenting the discussion of whether it is due to promote the faulty point that it is a BLP-issue. It objectively is not one — as there are multiple sources. This just isn't up for debate — and it does not help your case that you intentionally have misrepresented the discussion and entirely omitted a link to the discussion. I for one can not find any such discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard which is the appropriate place to discuss the issue (that is if BLP had at all been the issue at hand). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I did link to that discussion, a few comments above on this page. Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Mental health of a subject. I see that you have found it. The reason I put it on the BLP policy talk page rather than the BLP noticeboard was precisely because I wanted the question considered in general from a BLP standpoint, not evaluated specifically with regard to Trump. I wanted an evaluation of your repeated insistence that this has nothing to do with BLP guidelines. Based on responses there so far, the opinion at the BLP policy talk page is that it does, emphatically, deal with BLP guidelines. I see that you have entered the discussion there and are strongly arguing your point. There are now seven people disagreeing with you and saying this kind of material is NOT appropriate in an article, for BLP reasons. --MelanieN alt (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New source just out:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/is-it-time-to-call-trump-mentally-ill.html?_r=0

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter one iota about multiple sources - its about wp:blp and editing conservatively and with care and concern for the living person - I comment here only in minority worthlessness - there is zero chance of this crap being inserted to this wikipedia biography so go forget about it. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong. There is nothing in BLP that at even remotely prohibits inclusion of this information. Please read WP:PUBLICFIGURE and refer to the sources instead of referencing your personal opinion by calling sources "crap". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in public figure overrides WP:BLP major concerns and careful conservative editing as requested by that policy. Sorry for your position but you have no support, no consensus, although you support it, there is no support in policy and guidelines, in fact there is strong opposition to your position and interpretation of policy and guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You're entirely missing the point: and I'm not even taking sides as to the validity of the claims. However it is just so abundantly clear in WP:PUBLICFIGURE — that it absolutely applies here:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

If you wish to make a valid point Govindaharihari take some time to clarify how this at all differs from the examples given in the policy page (I've linked them above). Saying that PUBLICFIGURE does not apply isn't an argument, if you wish to be taken seriously clarify why this case differs and why this is exceptional compared to a case of an supposed affair as in the example. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 03:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Fredrik, did you happen to actually, y'know, sorta kinda, read the source cited? If so, can you tell us what the 1-sentence long 5th paragraph says? TheValeyard (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The nutshell at WP:NPOV reads: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing any editor suggest that this article should take a side on this issue. The question is whether there is enough RS to warrant explaining the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. We're talking about a few neutrally-worded sentences about the debate. I haven't yet formed an opinion or taken a position, but let's get the question right please. The applicable policy as I see it is WP:DUE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what Mandruss says! No, TheValeyard, I did in fact not read it, because I don't have to to make my point that it is an article in a reliable source discussing the issue. I'm not taking any stance here to the validity of the claims, just that they are notable enough that it might be due to include them. It is absolutely crazy that this is seen as somehow opinionated… I would ask if you "did [.] happen to actually, y'know, sorta kinda, "read" what I suggested as an edit above? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem...a problem that wouldn't have been a problem if you'd read what you cited...is that 5th paragraph, which reads But the attempt to diagnose a condition in President Trump and declare him mentally unfit to serve is misguided for several reasons. Basically, the source you cite tells people to, y'know, sorta kinda knock it off with the Armchair Diagnosing. Absent a document committal to psychiatric evaluation, e.g. Amanda Bynes#Legal issues or Mischa Barton#Psychiatric confinement, this sort of thing has no place in a BLP article. TheValeyard (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No all of that is entirely irrelevant — even notable dissent of a controversial opinion should be included in an article. The error that people seem to be making here is to assume that inclusions means that the article should read "Donald Trump is mentally ill" — no-one has suggested that! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 03:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What you're trying to do is essentially the same thing as saying "X is mentally ill", though, i.e. shove in as pile of citations of "experts" who have given their "diagnosis" from a distance, people who do say "X is mentally ill". Your own source which you declined to read said "this is why it's wrong". I agree with that assessment. TheValeyard (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

I am proposing that we change the lead sentence to:

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

It should mention that he is the current president. It was set up like that for Bush [22] and Obama[23]. It would also eliminate any confusion for people who might think there are 46+ presidents. I do realize that Trump being the current president is pretty much common knowledge, but we should never just assume that the reader knows that. Grapesoda22 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. --- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see nothing to alter the position I took in the same debate a couple of weeks ago. In any case, a ton of discussion has gone into the current consensus for the first sentence (see the six (6) links for #11 at #Current consensus), and I don't think we're going to change that sentence without an RfC consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Is implies current. MOS Writing precisely Bod (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bodhi Peace: "Implying" something isn't the same as directly saying something. As for the precise writing rule the word "current" could be swapped out for "incumbent". Grapesoda22 03:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks awkward to use the word "and" in succession like that. Also, the hatnote already properly says he's the incumbent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Obama and Bush had headers formatted like that when they were in office with out concerns about the sentence's appearance. Also, we are talking about the lead sentence, not the hatnote. Grapesoda22 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Per WP:Lead, the hatnote is part of the lead, and we should "describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." If the hatnote says he's the incumbent, I don't think the lead paragraph necessarily has to as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Saying he is the 45th president means he is the current president. When he ceases to be president, we will say he was the 45th president. TFD (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've discussed this before. The present tense of the verb 'to be' = is. Saying he is the 45th president, means he is the current president. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - with the addition of "...since January 20, 2017" & similar additions for the Mike Pence intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support — looks much better. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. - As above comments - The present tense of the verb 'to be' = is. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not necessary. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per numerous prior debates. This is as settled as it gets. — JFG ^talk 13:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Other suggestion:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, who is serving as the 45th President of the United States.

This sentence is more clear that it he is the current president, it complies with MOS Writing precisely, its not repeated information from the hatnote, and it isn't an akward looking sentence. Grapesoda22 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to restore the word "and" before "politician". I am personally OK with the "who is" construction, and in fact we had something like this in there a few months ago, but consensus at that time seemed against it. I would prefer at this time that we just stop the endless attempts to tweak this sentence and leave it as it is. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Already proposed and defeated. Please read the history of discussion about the first sentence, linked above. If you have a significant new argument, please present it; otherwise we don't get to keep re-raising issues until we get the desired result. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ya might be beating a dead horse here. Best to move on. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He's not even really a television "personality anymore" (or barley at least). Even if he was being the president is way more relevant. Grapesoda22 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a businessman either since he turned over management to his sons. TFD (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh that is silly. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Carter turned his business over to a blind trust run by his mother and brother. TFD (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the fact that the redundancy still stands after being flagged by multiple people and continues to wrongly imply two disparate roles. Bod (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bodhi Peace:, I don't understand 'two disparate roles.' He's got multiple roles, does he not? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to put politician and president in the same sentence.

This is overly redundant. Please clean this mess up. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sure there's megabytes on discussion on this, but I also think that "politician" should be taken out, given that he's not a politician outside of being a president, as silly as that may seem given the history of the presidency. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a ridiculous statement. The president is the biggest politician in the country. No one is more of a politician than the president. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: makes an excellent point. He was never a politician. He's being called one because he ran for office and won. Yesterday in his press conference he said he said he guessed he was one now. I think it's overstating "No one is more of a politiican than the president," since he held no political office or any government position, prior to being elected. But it is in the lede after much discussion and it will stay. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Drmies makes an excellent point (and I'm not just saying that because he's handing out barnstars).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's BS. He has been in politics since the 1980s. He has been a politician since the 1980s. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not making sense, or you're contradicting yourself--or both. You said something was redundant (well, "overly redundant", in which "overly" is redundant). I made an educated guess at what you meant. If I guessed wrong, you should explain yourself. Also, that Trump has been a politician since the 1980s is prima facie preposterous. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's not redundant. Politician is the profession(someone who seeks or holds a political office); President is the office that a politician holds. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If one is a president one is automatically a politician... Drmies (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• IP, I see you have a pretty extensive track record of commenting here--that is, making rather vague and bellicose statements. Bishonen has warned you of discretionary sanctions; 331dot and others (including some shady character named Drmies) have suggested you stop making disruptive comments here. Be more constructive (and clear), or be blocked--under discretionary sanctions, you are liable to get blocked for disrupting stuff. Note: I consider myself uninvolved in regards to you, and I happen to be an admin. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Bishonen, there's more from this IP editor in sections below. I think they're standing on the verge of not being here to really improve our article. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with @Drmies:. This IP does not appear to be here to edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Affiliations with Russia

A section about affiliations with Russia raises questions of whether there should be a sections with titles such as "Affiliations with Scotland", "Affiliations with Dubai", "Affiliations with Australia", "Affiliations with Turkey", "Affiliations with Panama", "Affiliations with Canada", "Affiliations with Indonesia" and so on. Why Russia particularly? This doesn't seem to indicate WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Russia is the number 1 enemy of America since 1945. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In 2012, only 2% of Americans viewed Russia as the United States' greatest enemy, according to Gallup. In 2002, 66% of Americans viewed Russia favorably. North Korea currently tops the list as "greatest enemy" according to popular opinion. Trump would probably say the number 1 enemy of America is "radical Islamic terrorists" or ISIS. His affiliations with majority Muslim nations might be more controversial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Russia and America are allies of course. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the the news has been focusing on the Russia-Trump issue for months now. That relationship is notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would concur. Historically significant.Casprings (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should scrap the picture in the section. Don't really need propaganda pictures in there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

One representative picture of dissent isn't propaganda. It makes the article more WP:N, which it isn't with the current picture set. I would suggest adding a pic of the woman's march also, for example.Casprings (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The section isn't about dissent, its about his past ties with Russia. So I fail to see how the picture is representative of the section. Also it is a form of propaganda, a biased representation to promote a political cause. So it is unrelated to the recently added section, and it should be removed. As an aside, reference 506 is broken and 503/508 are the same link. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Affiliations with Russia" has some problems. Firstly, it suggests Trump has some connection to the Russian government, which is false. Secondly, at best, he's had business dealings with private citizens, I don't see evidence he's had business dealings with the Russians. Did he build something for the Russian government? The title is problematic and should be put under "International business deals." Given the reporting in the press and the inuendos that he's involved with Putin, the word "Russian" is misleading and should be removed. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not false. Members of his campaign had multiple connects with the Russian Government. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html and it says it does business with Russian citizens, which is true and supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What members of his campaign did is not relevant, and I think they've denied these claims. This is Trump's BLP. If he's had business dealings, then it should be Business dealings in Russia, not "Affliations with Russia" which clearly implies links to the Russian State, and is misleading. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It is his campaign, as it was his business. Given the environment of Russian interference in the election and his former National Security Advisors interactions with Russian officials, affiliations with Russia, which are supported by WP:RS, are notable and important for the article.Casprings (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading though as sources have discussed Donald Trump personally and his affiliations and relations to the Russian government. The timeline of Trump's ties with Russia lines up with allegations of conspiracy and misconduct, Donald Trump, Julian Assange and Russia: How they’re connected, and how they changed an election. ValarianB (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The second article is an op-ed and therefore not reliable for facts. The first article says, "A dossier of unverified claims alleges serious conspiracy and misconduct in the final months of the 2016 presidential campaign." If we mention it at all, we cannot present "unverified claims" as facts. TFD (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with @The Four Deuces: we cannot present 'unverified claims.' See WP:BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If we decide that "Affiliations with Russia" or even "Business dealings in Russia" are worthy of a special section, should that also apply under "Foreign policy"? Does it follow that there be a sub-sub-section titled "Russia" in the foreign policy sub-section? Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's more relevant to the article on his presidency. We do not know yet what his policy will be, although it appears to be the same as Obama. TFD (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As Jacknstock mentioned earlier, US opinion of Russia only dropped after the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Even though it is very likely that Russia is at fault, I believe that it is not a valid reason to write an entire section/article on Trump and Russia's relationship just because he has a relationship with Putin and a few other people. Trump is a businessman, and businessmen do these things. York12321 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This whole section should be nuked as POV-pushing. The linked article is about Trump's failed business projects in Russia; trying to do business in a country does not make you "affiliated" to its government. The rest of the section consists of hyped-up political allegations about some of Trump's campaign advisers, better covered in other articles. I fail to see why this deserves a level-2 header in the full biography. Delete it or move it to the business section. — JFG ^talk 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I agree with every point you are making. I've tried getting over this point. The word "Affiliation" suggests ties to the Russian government. There's no evidence of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be nuked as POV-pushing. I was reading the article today and found this section has at least one serious inaccuracy. The sentence "Moreover, multiple members of his campaign and administration, including Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Michael Flynn, had extensive financial and business ties." It references a Time magazine article (Ref# 344). Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia This article does not support the statement at all, other than a second-hand quote from an Op-Ed author. Not a good reference. Stackmachine (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be rough consensus for removing this section, so I did the nuking and added a couple sentences elsewhere to summarize the US accusations of Russian intervention in favor of Trump and his denial thereof. — JFG ^talk 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes without consensus; time to move on?

This edit has consensus:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote

This edit does not

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or government service. Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the national popular vote

This edit has undergone numerous rounds of consensus including an RfC. Let's leave the edit alone for now and move on to other issues. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also someone added in "one of the few. . ." instead of "the fifth elected without a plurality of the national popular vote." The word 'few' implies three; Trump was the fifth. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I made the edit you refer to, I am actually fine with your reverting it and restoring the original wording. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: On what planet does "few" imply just 3? It simply means "a small number", which in the context we are discussing is absolutely fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• few
• fyo͞o/Submit

determiner, adjective, & pronoun determiner: few; adjective: few; comparative adjective: fewer; superlative adjective: fewest

• 1.a small number of.

"may I ask a few questions?" synonyms: a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three; More

• 2.used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is.

"he had few friends" synonyms: scarce, scant, meager, insufficient, in short supply; More antonyms: plentiful noun plural noun: the few

• 1.the minority of people; the elect."a world that increasingly belongs to the few"

synonyms: a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three; not many, hardly any "there weren't many biscuits, but we saved you a few"

In other words, not 5. And Hi, to whoever is explaining this to you. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the achievement of those those three or four pilots who won the Battle of Britain is all the more extraordinary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: We're not talking about Winston Churchill's rhetorical use of the word 'few.' SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to this, "few" is better than "several" because the former implies rarity, and four of five occurrences out of 45 certainly qualifies as rare. "Several" does not imply rarity. There are no scholarly sources I can find that insist "few" means three. None. "Few" is a relative number, and depends entirely on context. 4 or 5 out of 45 is few. If it were 6 or 7, perhaps "several" would be better, but the low number demands "few". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster entry says nothing about a specific number. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We can start an RfC if you like. But there is no consensus for 'few.' This is an encyclopedia. If reliable sources say he's the fifth, then that is what we use. Not Scjessey's opnion. The source I used said, two or three. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your unidentified source says "two or three" along with a lot of other things that you have chosen to ignore. In other words, in its opinion, one of the possible meanings of "few" is "two or three". Not the only meaning. Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster, one of the major dictionaries, omits even that brief reference to a specific number. I conclude that your (and Anything's) claim to a specific definition is without merit. Since the fourth-or-fifth question has been shown to be largely a matter of interpretation, I support "few". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The OED goes into great detail on the definitions of few without ever mentioning a number. Basically, it means not many. Objective3000 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My goodness this is rather silly. Donald Trump is the 5th -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- person to be elected with less than a plurality of the popular vote, that should be the end of the matter. Editor's personal quibbles with the sources must defer. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with @ValarianB: on this. This is down to editor's quibbles. If there is a question of 4 or 5, then show sources so the editors here can judge which sources to go with. Masking the issue by giving up and selecting the vague, 'few' does not seem a solution for an encyclopedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of a vague term. The point we wish to make is that the number is relatively small. Whether it's 4, 5, or 7 is less important, especially in the lead (we are already elaborating somewhat below the lead, and that could be further clarified if desired). As you say, we're an encyclopedia. We're not Trivial Pursuit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Scjessey's suggested wording "one of a few" is a good solution to avoid further disputes on this paragraph. People who want details are just a click away from a lengthy article discussing all the historical cases and near-misses. "A few" actually may pique readers' curiosity to go read more and get educated, which is after all the purpose of the encyclopedia… — JFG ^talk 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that there are inherent problems with using vague terms, especially in a BLP. There have also been many surveys and RfC's regarding this one paragraph and apparently none of them were over the word 'few.' If you would like to start a new RfC for it, then by all means do. It seems another time-sink when more effort could be put into improving other sections of the article that need more attention. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "few" would be better than a specific number, given uncertainty about 1960 and pre-1824, plus certainty that no one won a plurality in 1876. I would think "several" is more accurate but "few" works. By the way, there was no consensus to change 4 to 5. It was 4 when the RFC started.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

And be prepared for editors who believe: couple = 2; few = 3; several = 4 or more. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, then show us the sources that say 4, and sentence that does not require additional explanation such as "he was the fifth but really the fourth if you don't count so and so." SW3 5DL (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, please show sources for 'few.' SW3 5DL (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We are allowed to paraphrase. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there are many statements in the lead that are not verbatim in the sources. What source says "became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Few" makes it sound likes he's one of the ONLY ones and seems POV pushing, as if there was some fault or illegitimacy to his election when there was not. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Then start an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I plan on inserting "one of about five presidents elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote". So, we keep saying five but acknowledge uncertainty. We don't know about pre-1824 or 1960. We do know that no one won a plurality in 1876, so that cannot be one of the five. If people oppose this proposal, then I plan on reverting to the number 4 that existed when the no-consensus RFC began.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: SW3 5DL (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "one of about five. . ." it's going to invite reverts. But saying, "Trump is the fourth president. . ." would be fine but I'd like to see the RS. The problem with being concerned with 1824 or 1960, if these election vote counts are not knowable, and I don't see why 1960 would not be sourced, then the sources would still have some measure of what happened. But rather than making what could seem a unilateral move, show RS for changing to 4, rather than just saying it was there in the previous RfC. Somewhere along the line, somebody came up with the rationale for "fifth president. . ." Find out how that came about. I believe you that it was 4 before, but somehow it became 5. How did that happen? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a typo given all the iterations that edit has gone through. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources unanimously say that a president won less than the plurality of the popular vote in 1824, 1888, 2000, and 2016. That is why the number "4" was in the lead when the RFC started. It was not a typo. Reliable sources also say there is some chance that a president may have won with less than a plurality of the popular vote before 1824 and/or in 1960. And reliable sources unanimously say that no one got a plurality of the popular vote in 1876. Those are the facts. If you doubt one of more of those facts, then please tell me which ones, and I'd be glad to again provide reliable sources. It is not our job to pretend that there is only one single exact truth about this stuff. The lead of our article about the Sun says, "Its diameter is about 109 times that of Earth." Note the word "about".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like I had 4th in the RfC, but JFG's version had 5th, so I changed it. I might have gotten the 4th from you. [24]. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It said "fourth" when the RFC began on 8 January. It said "fifth" on 11 February, but it said "fourth" the day before. There was never any consensus for the edit to change it to fifth on 10 February. And the editor who made that edit later changed his mind and attempted to remove "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: you need to show the diffs of that. I'm not going to go hunting for them. I found the ones I was involved in, I don't see why you can't find yours.

Also, I just did a Google search and I'm finding the sources are saying it's Hillary who is the 5th candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, as well as sources that say Trump is the 4th to win without the popular vote, and also sources that say he is the 5th to win the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I need to show diffs? My last comment above (00:56, 21 February 2017) is full of diffs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources say 5th, from what I have seen and from what other Wikipedia articles say. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. TheValeyard (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The sources are unanimous that no candidate in 1876 won less than the plurality, because there was no plurality in 1876. Samuel Tilden in 1876 remains the only loser to win a majority of the popular vote (rather than a plurality). The sources are also unanimous that we do not know how many presidents before 1824 won with less than a plurality of the popular vote, and that there is controversy about who won the most votes in 1960.[25][26][27]

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pew Research Center seems to have it sorted: [28] SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pew says, "For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote.". You can lose the popular vote by getting less than the plurality (as in 1826, 1888, 2000, 2016) or instead by getting less than the majority (1876). 4+1=5. Since you have objected to using the word "about", I plan on reverting to "four" which was what the article said at the start of the RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But now we're back to your obsession with the popular vote majority and that's back in the weeds. It seems that was discussed at length in every instance including the RfC that went nowhere and as far as I can see, nobody wanted it. And for good reason. It's clear as mud and you repeatedly failed to come up with a coherent edit that editors could agree on. You are becoming disruptive with this.SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am obsessed and you are not. Sure. Whatever you say. If you would like to remove the popular vote from the lead, go ahead. Until you remove it, it remains in the lead and should be accurate. There's nothing disruptive about reverting the number to what it was when the no-consensus RFC started.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but 1876 counts despite your sole voice protesting against it, making Trump's 2016 election the 5th. Also, what may or may not have happened before 1824 is irrelevant; if popular votes were not officially recorded before then, then we simply don't pay attention to that. The NFL did not start officially tallying sacks until 1982. Quarterbacks were certainly tackled behind the line of scrimmage before 1982, but they are an unofficial, statistical irrelevance. TheValeyard (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, 1876 counts as a time when the person who lost the election won the popular vote, but does not count as a time when the person who lost the election won a plurality of the popular vote. You can keep arguing all you want, but it won't change history. Nor will arguing change the fact that many reliable sources say JFK may have lost the popular vote. But by all means, put all your misinformation into the lead of this high-profile BLP. Cheers!Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: makes an excellent point about the counts before 1824. If there are no records, then what happened is unknowable and irrelevant. JFK's election is in question because of voter fraud. We can't know about that either. We have to go with what we know and can be sourced. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, people. This bickering over whether or not it is the fourth of fifth time is exactly why I came up with "one of the few" in the first place! It looks like a majority of editors agree with this compromise, yet it seems certain editors insist on slow-motion edit warring the contentious version back into the article, and then continuing their stupid argument about it. Put "one of the few" back in for stability, let the blue links do their work in the lede, and expand the text in the body so that the matter is fully explained. But this madness needs to stop! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: That comment isn't helping sort things here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: and your reference to slow-edit warring, it seems to be you doing that with your unilateral decision to replace with 'few' [29]. My only edits have been to restore edits that have consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a "unilateral" decision. Replacing the text with "one of the few" had support from other editors. Your edits merely disruptively restored an earlier consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Do you have diffs of your consensus before you made your change? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is it correct that 1876 counts as a time when the person who lost the election won the popular vote, but does not count as a time when the person who lost the election won a plurality of the popular vote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but first I have some RL to attend to. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Anythingyouwant, no need for the heightened tone earlier, we can all discuss this rationally. I'm just a simple guy who looks at the simple numbers that other editors have pointed to, and also the simple sources. The Daily Kos says it is 5 (Donald Trump: Sub-Plurality President), the International Business Times says Trump is the 5th (Vote Update: Why Hillary Clinton Didn't Win A Majority Of The Electorate), and while CNN does not out-and-out say "5th" in their article (It's official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote), they do tally your disputed 1876 election as one of these tainted plurality votes, so one can safely surmise they see Trump as #5. I'm looking at the sources and telling you what they say; at the end of that day, what else can we do? TheValeyard (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard:, I agree. I just looked at the totals:

• 50.92% for Tilden
• 47.92% for Hayes

• 48.2%Clinton
• 46.1% Trump

It looks like less than a plurality for Hayes. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You think Tilden won a plurality?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arby break II

This is the biography page of Donald Trump, elected US President in 2016. Whatever happened in 1876 has no bearing on his bio. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This whole section has strayed away from a productive discussion to improve the article, into a debate on historical stats. We might as well remove the whole sentence, so nobody will argue fourth, fifth, a few or irrelevancy. More seriously, we can either keep the current version with "fifth" and the link, or switch to Scjessey's proposal with "a few"; in both cases, readers interested to learn more are one click away from a full article on electoral quirks of history. If editors can't agree on a consensus version, the current text stays in until somebody offers a new version and gets it approved by RfC. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What I seek is stability. The text I proposed was designed to get around the fourth/fifth argument, which is better explored at length elsewhere, rather than in the lede. We should need an RfC (supposed to be a last resort thing) just because a couple of editors don't know what "few" means. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, you say we should keep saying in the lead that Trump's the "fifth" in history to defeat someone who got a plurality of the popular vote, but you say it's irrelevant whether the other four actually happened, and irrelevant whether reliable sources actually say they happened. Very amusing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Obviously I'm not saying that historical precedents are irrelevant in general. I just believe that such historical trivia are indeed irrelevant to Donald Trump's biography; they are relevant to the 2016 election page and to the Electoral College page. I also believe that if we are going to say something, we must not dwell into details, as there's an article for this. Which explains why I'm fine with either "fifth" (as seems to be the correct count per most sources) or "a few" (to appease nitpickers about various interpretations of historical stats). — JFG ^talk 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but suppose it's not correct according to most sources. Then you would apparently feel differently about this. And it's extremely clear to me that no reliable source on earth says that there have been five instances where someone lost the presidency while getting a plurality of the popular vote. Not. One. Source. What the sources say is that there have been four instances like that, and five instances where someone lost the presidency while getting the largest share of the popular vote. The sources are extremely clear about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Then leaving the edit as is, should be fine. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not fine, because of the issue that some editors think "fourth" is more accurate than "fifth". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: This is disruptive. JFG was just making a copy edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing "a" back to "the" is disruptive? I think we should have an ArbCom case about that. Seriously, there was no grammatical issue. And I honestly think that the word "the" makes more clear that Clinton won a plurality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You guys need to stop reverting each other over every damn thing. It's particularly laughable when editors perform reversions in the name of stability. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It was not just in the name of stability, though undoubtedly one of the versions was more stable than the other. It was also because there was no grammatical error as had been alleged. And the third reason was that it makes clearer that Clinton won a plurality. That's three valid reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Geez Louise. How many times do we have to go through this? OK, for starters, we are not going to say "few" or "several" or any such hedge, because Reliable Sources don't. They mostly say "fifth"; a few say "fourth" because they aren't counting 1824. (They omit 1824 because they are talking about people who won the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and in 1824 the winning candidate lost both the electoral college and the popular vote. But that doesn't matter to us because we are not saying "won the electoral college"; we are saying "was elected" or "became president") According to an article cited by Anythingyouwant in the section below, the four previous "canonical instances", i.e., universally accepted examples, are 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Those are the examples referred to by all the Reliable Sources. That's why Trump is the fifth. Anythingyouwant wants us to exclude 1876 because of the distinction between "plurality" and "majority"; personally think that is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin distinction. I haven't seen any reliable sources do that; excluding 1876 would just be a function of our using the word "plurality". I suppose we could say "less than a plurality or majority" and solve that quibble, but it would look really silly. 1960 is not cited by any of the sources writing about Trump, so we don't need to worry about it in this biography article. We could get around the pre-1824 issue by saying "since records began to be kept in 1824" but the body of the text already says that; it seems unnecessarily detailed for the lede. Bottom line, he is the fifth, just like it says in the long-established sentence and in the reliable sources, and this constant haggling about the wording is getting us nowhere.

Just to make it clear: I strongly oppose "few" or "several", or "about five" or "at least the fifth", because Reliable Sources don't hedge like that. I strongly oppose "fourth" because it is misleading and simply wrong. {If it was there before the RfC that was an accident of timing; it had gone back and forth between fourth and fifth for a long time; there was never a consensus for "fourth".) If the "plurality" argument causes problems with 1876, we could rewrite the sentence to get around "plurality". But seriously, there is only one person, Anythingyouwant, who keeps haggling about this sentence and threatening to do it his way regardless of what we say. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important that Clinton won a popular plurality instead of a popular majority, and lots of reliable sources have said the same. This would be irrelevant but for the random and silly decision not to mention percentages in the lead. Because we're talking in the lead about pluralities rather than all popular vote victories, the sources that count the latter are inapplicable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So let's stop talking about pluralities for heavens sake, and use some other word. That's the only problem with 1876. If we get rid of the word "plurality", which many people opposed anyhow, we can count the four "canonical" previous instances as we should - and as the vast majority of Reliable Sources have done. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember that it is only alleged that she won a popular plurality, and that some think that their was voter fraud particularly in California. If we include percentages in the lead we might as well include that too. We might as well include the margins at the College, as it is claimed that he won that in a landslide too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Emir of Wikipedia: Agree with Melanie, impressive job sorting that. Also agree with Emir on the voter fraud thing. On the percentages, I don't think that's a good long term solution unless the other presidents have it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We agreed that the percentages go in the body of the text, not in the lede. The actual electoral vote numbers are in the text also. As for the popular vote margin, it is not "only alleged" that she won a popular plurality; that is the documented result from all actual tallies and all official sources. If there are inaccuracies in that count, they cannot possibly be large enough to affect the total. What is "only alleged" - without any evidence or any details - is that there was voter fraud widespread enough to have reversed the popular vote. It is against all credibility that such a thing could have been pulled off, without detection, on such a huge scale. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not some hat trick to rig the election. California gives driver's licenses to the undocumented aliens and at the DMV there is a voter registration. They get the license and they register to vote at the same time. California allows them to register. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? There is zero evidence of significant voter fraud. There may be some voter registration fraud, but not actual voter fraud. Clinton's popular vote lead was legitimate. Moreover, Trump did not win in an "Electoral College landslide" either. His margin of victory is pretty low down on the list, in fact. All this bullshit comes from Trump himself, because his skin is so thin he can't cope with the fact he barely won the election (it hinged on a few thousand votes in a few key states). And the fact that there are only 4 other instances (out of 44) in which this happened, you could actually argue his win was somewhat anomalous and unusual. So let's dispense with the cheerleading for Trump, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, it is illegal in California for non-citizens to register to vote. Objective3000 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a member of the L.A. City Council who is an undocumented immigrant. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source? If you can't find one, I suggest you delete the above edit. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Might be referring to 2 appointed to public office in Huntington Park CA. To parks and recreation commission as well as health and education commission? CNN I'm not really sure PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Could be -- although it's not LA, they aren't elected, and aren't paid. They're just volunteer advisors. Objective3000 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Its a part of LA county, but yeah a bit of a nothing there. Lots of media hype at the time that passed quickly. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, LA County is enormous with a larger population than 42 states. LA is only 11% of LA County in area. Objective3000 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not true

Someone keeps changing "a plurality" back to "the plurality" because they want to see 5th changed to 4th. The sentence is not true as it stands now... Just change it to "losing the popular vote" and be rid of the plurality thing. There is no reason to pack the fact that Clinton won less than a majority into that little part... Bod (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not pack it in?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Because most won't get that nugget of information from the sentence and in order to do it, you have to have 4th, which I know you want. 01:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gold nugget Bod (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You really think I want the lead to include that Clinton got a plurality because I like the number 4 better than the number 5? If that's what you think, it's entirely backwards and absurd. Some readers will glean from the sentence in question that Clinton got a plurality rather than a majority. Some won't. I see absolutely no harm in including the information (which is why the word "the" seems totally harmless to me).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Anything, I realize you are eager to make it clear that Clinton did not get a popular majority. (I don't know why this is so important to you; it's actually fairly common that no-one gets a majority when there are significant third-party candidates.) That's why you are so insistent on using the word "plurality". You think this word gets the point across, even though most people don't understand the distinction between "plurality" and "majority" unless they look it up. This might be "harmless", as you say, except for your insistence that this word means we must omit one of the generally accepted previous instances where someone became president even though someone else got a higher share of the popular vote. You are never going to get consensus for this, so the only alternatives are to rewrite the sentence so as to drop "plurality", or accept "plurality" but also accept "fifth" which you are unwilling to do. I really hate to rewrite the long-term sentence but I also want to put an end to this interminable quibbling over the sentence. We have had multiple proposals during this thread that would do that, but you objected to all of them. If you can't find any wording you will accept that says he is the fifth, we are eventually going to have to just close this discussion, leaving your objections unsatisfied. Consensus rules here; one person cannot overcome consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Well said. Finally someone has said it. If he persists, I would support topic banning him. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC) was

@MelanieN: I would agree to drop "plurality" which opens a can of worms, and rephrase this with "a larger share of", or rather "a smaller share of" because we are talking about Trump's performance here. Some variant of this phrasing actually the going version at some point which seems eons ago… — JFG ^talk 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is almost my last comment on the subject. Some editors here do not care in the least how many reliable sources say that Clinton failed to get a majority of the popular vote. For whatever reason, there is insistence that any hint of that fact be kept out of the lead. Contrary to what User:MelanieN has said, I have agreed to at least half a dozen proposed wordings, in both the RFC and afterward. Instead, I keep bumping into some weird fixation with the number five. If I say that Tuesday is one of the seven days of the week, it is also true that Tuesday is one of five weekdays. Five and seven are both correct. I am removing this article from my watchlist. Have fun!Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you @MelanieN. Imo, you've hit the nail by writing it's actually fairly common that no-one gets a majority when there are significant third-party candidates. --Neun-x (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's very uncommon for a losing candidate to get a plurality, and even rarer for a losing candidate to get a majority. The reason why reliable sources so very often mentioned that Clinton got less than a majority is because getting a majority would have more severely undermined the perceived legitimacy of Trump's presidency.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus proposal

Proposed rephrasing following the extensive discussion:

(A) Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with a smaller share of the national popular vote.

Polling for approval or rejection… — JFG ^talk 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support - Excellent compromise wording that surely satisfies the concerns of all parties. Great work, JFG! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "smaller share" too vague and will just result in more 'proposals.' Come up with something else, like the fifth to lose the popular vote, if you want to get rid of plurality. I have no objection to getting rid of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Work on it This is progress, but could be improved. Comparing it to the previous "consensus" version, this makes two changes: it omits "At age 70" (I think we all agreed on that) and improves the final phrase. I agree that "smaller share" is unclear. "Elected" is also not strictly true since a couple of the previous cases were chosen by Congress. How about something like this?

  ...the fifth person to become president when someone else got a larger share of the national popular vote.

  We could say

  ...the fifth person to become president while losing the national popular vote.

  but I never really liked talking about "winning" or "losing" the popular vote, as if it were an actual contest which it isn't. However, many Reliable Sources use this terminology so I could accept it.--MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: What about this?

(B) Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to lose the popular vote.

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. Others? --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good. think it says it all and it has the link to the Wiki articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't do it just on our say-so. We will need a much wider consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I can support that. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I wasn't suggesting it be on our say-so. I was responding to the fact that you had earlier made your own suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not so great, sorry. The popular vote is a statistic about the election, it's not a contest that can be won or lost. The target article should even be re-titled. It's true that many sources write about "losing the popular vote" for expediency, but this is on its face incorrect, and I believe the encyclopedia should be more precise with language (especially in potentially contentious topics). It had been proposed that we should mention Trump "winning" the majority of counties, and that was rejected as well because it's just a statistic, not something to win or lose. This election is indeed exceptional as one of only 5 examples, so we can definitely say something, but we are not in the business of handing out consolation prizes to Hillary Clinton. Say "Trump received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", or "Trump received fewer votes than Clinton nationwide" or "the national tally of ballots favored his opponent", there are many ways to skin this cat… — JFG ^talk 11:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion B2 Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected after losing the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion C

(C) Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to receive fewer votes than his opponent.

Any support for that one? — JFG ^talk 11:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I like this one more, in part because "popular vote" is not a well-known concept outside the US & UK. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to support every proposal now, because I'm fed up with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. support --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It brings back the problem of neglecting the Electoral College, and again, the vague 'fewer.' Nowhere is there a suggestion he won any votes, which he did. Instead this edit is saying he's the president despite not winning enough votes. And going by JFG's protest above, the popular vote is a statistic. Should we then say by what percentage Trump lost the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All previous proposals have also left out the electoral college; that is explained in the body of the text. Likewise the percentages. We are talking here about the lede paragraph, which is not supposed to go into detail. If we can't agree on something better, we could be stuck with the unfortunate word "plurality" which is now in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the use of plurality made it plain how the national vote went. This is what we have now:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

What's wrong with it and why is it that nobody so far has come up with a better edit? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. We all have ideas how to improve it, but we can't agree, and if we can't, we should stop wasting our time and just let it stand. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not right. The existing text is unpopular, otherwise we would not keep trying to revise it. SW3 has complained loudly whenever a proposal seems to elevate the status of the popular vote, but improving the article should never be held hostage to one editor's intransigence. The fact is that the popular vote is important. For one thing, it echoed the opinion polls in the run up to the election, which is why Trump's victory was such a surprise. The difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College highlights the flaws in the EC system, the flaws in Clinton's campaign strategy, the flaws in opinion poll methodology and a host of other factors. Also, apart from a extremely select group of people intimately familiar with US politics, the term "plurality" is not well understood. JFG has presented two perfectly acceptable solutions to these issues, and only SW3 seems to object to them. We should pick one of these solutions and put it in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually SW3 proposed a perfectly acceptable solution above - (B) Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to lose the popular vote. - and JFG was the one who objected to it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, I can't support any version that mentions "losing" or "winning" the popular vote, as explained above. @MelanieN: you also wrote I never really liked talking about "winning" or "losing" the popular vote, as if it were an actual contest which it isn't, so we seem to agree that this formulation would be unlikely to get consensus. Am I right? — JFG ^talk 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point, we are arguing in circles. Every possible comment and variation has been discussed to death among a small group of regulars with enough patience to keep going and try to find a solution which satisfies everybody. Such a solution does not exist. I suggest putting proposal C up for an RfC. I know that the prior RfC failed to get consensus, but this text is much simpler and may well work. Also we should avoid offering several options in RfCs, that just kills the chances for consensus right from day 1. If that step fails, then we're back to the current "by default" version which is not elegant but also not false, and hopefully we can live with that for 6 months before re-hashing the debate yet again. Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 21:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe instead of focusing on what you want, why don't you think about what works for the reader?I'd like to add that myself and others have come up with many iterations of this edit and you've rejected every one. Like many others, I've worked very hard to come up with something will work for the article and the reader. You only accept what you want. This is disruption. Are we to go through this with every edit you want? I don't think that's fair to the editors or to this article. You disrupted the last RfC. Continuing this quest to get what you want is disruptive. Maybe you should take a break, like Anythingyouwant has done. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (U

@SW3 5DL: I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of your criticism here. Surely you're trying to help reach consensus, and so am I, and so are our fellow discussants – good faith all around. Indeed what works for the reader must be our overarching priority, and I often quote WP:Readers first myself, so we agree on that too. In this thread I have read what everybody was saying then I offered a potential way forward in terms of phrasing, or even several ones, and I asked for comments. I feel that suggestions A, B and C can all work well for the readers. You oppose my proposal C, and I oppose your proposal B, but we are just chatting among 5-6 editors here anyway, so I say let's put it to RfC. Then you say I'm only pushing for what I want?? Now I'm puzzled.

Let's move back a few weeks. Last time that we were close to a consensus version, you said "hey, let's put it to RfC" and you proceeded, without even asking the other participants whether an RfC was a good idea and which of the various versions under active discussion should be submitted to RfC. Indeed you launched the RfC with two variants that you had suggested, ignoring the more recent ones that had been collectively refined towards consensus… at a point where everybody in the discussion was feeling we were very close to consensus. Seeing that, I said that the RfC was probably counter-productive and asked you to hold it; MelanieN agreed, but you felt differently. Then I added a third choice in the RfC which reflected the closest we were getting to a consensus version in the discussion thread, and we let the process run its course.

But seeing the !votes come in, you started accusing people of canvassing, emailing or other bad faith aspersions. Many editors happened to prefer the C variant and you felt that the game was rigged, of which I saw absolutely no evidence. I remember being genuinely puzzled at your accusations. Finally after 30 days and many participants the RfC was closed without consensus and we retained the prior version which happened to be not too bad after all. So today, as the discussion has been re-ignited, and we have limited local consensus with some objections, I suggest to put the proposed text to an RfC and you call this disruptive? I really really don't get it. Maybe I should take a break, as you suggest. Respectfully, — JFG ^talk 23:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

To address the "winning/loosing" dislike above, e.g. just say he won the electoral without gaining the popular vote.(Even though "winning/loosing" is what we know it as here in the US.)--TMCk (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, thanks, but "gaining the popular vote" isn't at all clear, and I don't think any Reliable Sources used that word. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was to leave off the electoral college. I agree, in the US it is common the winning/losing just like the rest of the world. And notice the edit starts off with "Trump won. . ." so adding in "losing the popular vote" fits in. I forget what that's called in English, when words complement like that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course the phrase starts with "Trump won the election" because — well, how shall I put it? — he won the election! Saying that he lost the popular vote is a false equivalence; it makes it sound like there are two criteria to become US head of state, and that somehow Trump is kind of only halfway legitimate because he prevailed with only one of the two criteria. This is absurd on its face. In my country, some votes require a double majority: 50% of the ballots and 50% of the cantons (our little states); in such a system you can actually say "Project X was rejected by the people although it was approved by the cantons", or vice versa. Under the US presidential system, this duality simply does not exist. It may be discussed in article about a particular election where it happened, or about the voting system itself, but it has no place in the lead section of a candidate's biography. Even our George W. Bush article does not use the "win/lose" terms about the popular vote; it only says: He was elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent. — JFG ^talk 01:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Arby break III

If we do go for a new RfC, make it ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PHRASE. Don't mention "oldest and wealthiest" or "first without prior military or government service" in the proposal, because we already have a hard-fought consensus on those phrases. Personally I think we might reach a consensus among us if we would just spell out exactly what it is we object to in the proposals we have opposed; that has been hard to parse sometimes. For example, SW3 objected to "C" because it leaves out the electoral college and uses the word "fewer". And yet a few paragraphs earlier, SW3 actually proposed a version ("B") that did not mention the electoral college, so that must not be a deal-breaker after all. JFG objected to the word "losing" which is why he proposed "C". If we could agree among us which version to offer at RfC, and agree not to offer alternative wordings during the course of the discussion, I think we would have a much better chance of getting a real consensus. I STRONGLY urge that none of us start an RfC until we have agreed among ourselves what version to propose. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with your suggestions: discuss just the last phrase and get local agreement on a version first. Also we have to decide if we put two variants to the !vote, or just one vs status quo. In either case, it should remain limited to a binary choice: "this or that"; not "foo, bar, bazaar, zygyzy or maybe your own idea, unless you firmly oppose any change" — that's guaranteed to fail from the get-go. — JFG ^talk 01:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

unhelpful squabbling and finger-pointing — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(e/c) I oppose another RfC. And absolutely oppose having only one choice, which is of course JFG's choice. Seriously? I suggest JFG stop now and leave this go for several months. He has been pushing this for too long, and taking up all our time. He won't stop until he gets what he wants. What's the difference between version A and C? "smaller versus fewer." No change, no evidence of any compromise. There's nothing wrong with the edit as it is. This can wait. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN:, No, we cannot do this again. JFG and Scjessey are tag-teaming this because they want the language "fewer" or "smaller" which both say the same thing and are vague, will cause problems and confuse the reader. It suggests that Trump has done something wrong but is still president, or as Scjessy puts it, it is 'anomalous.' We can't inject his POV. And the determination to keep this going for how long? With these walls of text? Sorry, JFG is the one who is not compromising. Also, notice how he wants only HIS version for an RfC. No, not again. Give it a rest for now. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: I strongly urge you to redact your allegation of tag-teaming. For the rest of your aspersions about my motives, I just commented above, I'm simply disappointed that you would assume bad faith from me or from anyone else in those discussions. Thanks. — JFG talk 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC) I'm disappointed that you keep assuming bad faith on my part. It's not about "what I want". What I want is a stable consensus, as I suppose that's what we all want here. Now there are three variants on the table: (A) the fifth elected with a smaller share of the popular vote (B) the fifth to lose the popular vote (C) the fifth to receive fewer votes than his opponent plus the statu quo option: (S) the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote I don't give a hoot who suggested which variant. I want a successful RfC resulting in a stable phrasing, so we can all get on with our lives. This outcome has been achieved on no less than 15 contentious subjects within this article; surely we can get over this one hurdle too. If this goes to RfC with 4 variants, we are practically guaranteed a no consensus outcome, which means (S) wins the day. Frankly, it's a very awkward turn of phrase; might as well forgo the RfC and close this discussion. Now if we agree that (S) is bad, then we can further agree on one variant and put this to the RfC, or we can pick two and make it an either/or choice. I'm open to both possibilities. — JFG talk 01:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC) We have consensus We have stable phrasing There is no hurdle we need to get over other than asking you to stop voluntarily It will go to RfC with many iterations because everybody will feel free to come out with the thing that bugs them, not just you. It is not an 'awkward turn of phrase.' Rather it says exactly what happened in a concise, accurate way, and more importantly, it does it with consensus. We don't need another RfC Please stop putting up walls of text SW3 5DL (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @JFG: This isn't about me. It's about your continuing disruption of this page. You're already interrupting my posts. And as for the comment that you're only doing this "so we can all go on with our lives?" We have been moving on to other things. It's just you and Scjessey who have not. And we have a stable consensus. So far, you, Scjessey, and Anythingyouwant are the only ones who kept roiling this page. He left voluntarily. Take a break. Leave this alone. Donald Trump won. End of. The edit is stable, it's neutral, and it's concise and very clear what the outcome was. We can all move on now. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) You might note that you have zero support for your criticisms of JFG. Then remember what zero support means at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) He's been doing this for two months. What's your idea for an edit? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC) I said some time ago something to the effect that cost exceeds benefit to continue debate on this sentence, and that the status quo is not unacceptable to me. You and others chose to continue debate, which is fine, but my opinion hasn't changed. Basically, I'm abstaining except to say that I'm not opposed to another RfC, which might have a better chance of producing a consensus than what we've been doing here for the past week or two. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC) I remember that. I feel the same way. Diminishing returns. You didn't like plurality, but what about popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC) I'm abstaining. That means I'm not going to be drawn back into the debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

• Use "become president" over "elected"
• I object to "his opponent" because 1824 had multiple opponents
• "receive fewer votes" without additional qualifications = confusing with electors who also cast "votes"

(X) and the fifth to become president after receiving fewer popular votes than another candidate.

\\ Bod (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

'It's a bit wordy. "after receiving fewer popular votes than another candidate." I think win the presidency and lose the popular vote. It's thought of that way since Al Gore won the popular vote and lost to Bush and gets rid of the word plurality. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to lose the popular vote. Seems straight forward, yet simple. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not bad. I would support it. Not sure it will pass though. Bod (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It has to be "and the fifth to become president after losing the national popular vote." Bod (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected after losing the popular vote. What about that? SW3 5DL (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I object to "elected" and I also think we can do better than "losing". See the phrasing for Bush. Bod (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

But he did lose the popular vote. A Google search shows:

Trump "lost the popular vote." 12,300, 000 hits [30]

Trump "received fewer votes," 891,000 [31] SW3 5DL (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a problem with "elected" because two of the five were appointed by Congress. But I agree with SW3 in regards to "losing", since it is by far the most common way to describe the popular vote outcome. So perhaps this:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth after losing the popular vote.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

But did the two also lose the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. All five we are concerned with lost the popular vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, SW3, the version I just proposed is identical to a version you proposed, with the exception of "after losing" instead of "to lose". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. I think "to lose the popular vote" is better. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "after losing" instead of "to lose" because we use the term "assume the presidency" earlier in the sentence - something that happens over two months after the popular vote occurs. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"To be clear," as you like to say, your suggested edit is not identical to mine. Now I know why I wrote, ". . .and the fifth elected after losing the popular vote." It's because it seems to be leaving something dangling when you get that far down the sentence. Also, the current edit says, "and the fifth elected to lose the plurality of the vote." Not having 'elected' seems a grammatical error. I think the bit about 'appointed' is not relevant. That's why "the fifth to lose the popular vote," makes more sense if 'elected' bothers you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And note also that being 'appointed' is not true. They still had an election. The Congress had to decide the winner, but that does not negate the election. Nobody has ever just been 'appointed' president of the Untied Staes. Senators/Representatives have been appointed by Governors for interim terms until elections take place, but never a president. "Elected" is correct. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Those two were appointed despite the result of the election. One of them lost both the EC and the popular vote! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I will accept any of these proposals - because all of them are better than the current version. My preference is for "and the fifth to become president after losing the national popular vote." It is easy to understand, even for non-English speakers, and it reflects reality well. (I know I have said I dislike the word "losing," but this seems better than any of the alternatives here - and better supported by Reliable Sources.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The problem with "the fifth to become president after losing the national popular vote," is not accurate. He did not become president after he lost the popular vote. He become president-elect after he won the electoral college. He is the fifth to lose the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"He is the fifth" what? He is the fifth president to take office under these circumstances, right? He became president in January; he lost the popular vote in November; becoming president came two months after losing the popular vote which is what "after" means. However, as I said, I will not insist on my preferred version. I will support any of these versions including "the fifth to lose the popular vote" if that is consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: No, the process is the election, and must take place. He was elected, they all were, doesn't matter if the Speaker of the House had to cast the deciding vote. It's still a vote, it's never an appointment. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So now are you arguing for "the fifth to be elected after losing the popular vote"? Whereas in your note to me just above you seemed to be arguing for "the fifth to lose the popular vote"? So you would accept either of these versions, is that correct? --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. IMO we are SOOOOO close to agreement - often within a single word, and in many cases we are proposing things that other people have previously proposed. Please let's keep an open mind, not get hung up on "my version" vs. "your version", and find something we really can all accept. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My preference is "the fifth to lose the popular vote." I think it has the least problems. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I still think "after losing" makes more sense. As Melanie says, it is better supported in RS and it is easier to read. Both versions mean the same thing, SW3 - time for you to agree so we can move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal II

Perhaps its time to move this sentence out of the lede. Donald Trump is no longer a candidate, he's now into his presidency. This edit seems to bother the few, not the many, and has taken far too much time and space. I think everybody is getting weary of this. It can move to the body of the article under the 'election' section, and the 2016 election has it's own article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that isn't going to work. Every single Trump fan who comes across this article will wonder why it is not in the lede act accordingly. It is better that we decide on something sensible and accurate, rather than let it be dictated by the proverbial barbarian horde. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No. It is too important. These are some of the things that make his presidency historic, and that will always be part of his presidential record. I don't much like the current sentence, but it is preferable to having nothing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

POLL: Further actions

See new section: #Election summary in lead: further actions

New footnote in article

A new footnote was added to the section “Election to the presidency” with this edit: [32] I believe we should delete from the footnote this sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim, except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [33] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Anythingyouwant: I am pinging the user who added it for there comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks for taking the time to ping me. The cited source says "Some people also think the Electoral College determined the 1960 election because of some ambiguity in how Alabama conducted its elections." And the source links to this detailed article about it. Did you look at that cited source User:MelanieN? I think JFK very probably got more of the popular vote, but I disagree that we should censor all contrary views. Many other reliable sources confirm that we don't know for sure who won the popular vote in 1960.[34][35][36]. Et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as off-topic – Folks, remember this article is the biography of Donald Trump, not an essay about the fine details of the US presidential electoral process or the historical peculiarities of such elections. — JFG ^talk 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, the cited source is about Trump, and this factoid is merely in a tiny little unobtrusive note. We say in the lead how rare this situation is, but you don't even want to mention in a footnote that it may not be so rare after all?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: you often add these so-called 'factoids' into the sources when you cannot get consensus, as you did on the sources about the draft. We should have a survey on this. These additions require consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the cited source is not "about Trump", it is about the Electoral College and some oddities of past elections; it would be fine to use it in the relevant articles, not here. Obviously it has become fashionable to hyperventilate about anything remotely related to Trump ever since that fateful day of June 2015 when he announced his candidacy. An encyclopedia should be more sober. — JFG ^talk 06:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete it. The 1960 election and the Alabama electoral issue/debacle makes for interesting "what if?" discussions in a high school civics class, perhaps, but it is really no more than that, a passing quirk of history. They had to decide how to count those electors, and the chosen method was not loved by everyone, but decide it they did. It is fact. TheValeyard (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• I still favor deleting it. OK, now you have shown us some better sources: a few books, and an essay at Real Clear Politics, that parse the Alabama votes in such a way as to put the 1960 popular vote in question. The Real Clear Politics essay makes our situation clear when it refers to "the four canonical instances where the electoral vote and popular vote went to different candidates: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000." It adds "These are fairly well known to political junkies. Far less well-known is that we should probably include a fifth such split: 1960." We are using the four "canonical instances" in this article, as are virtually all Reliable Sources. I wouldn't be surprised if there half a dozen other "far less well known" years, in addition to 1960, where some people have argued to re-analyze the votes and come up with something different from the official tally. (This is the kind of thing people have to do to earn a PhD in political science or history.) We don't need to search them out and include them. IMO we should list only the four "canonical", i.e., generally accepted instances (which are already more detail than really needed in this biography, but OK in a footnote) and we should remove the "1960" sentence. But if consensus is to retain it, it will need a much better source that the current one, which mentions the challenge only obliquely and in passing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to remove this sentence from the footnote. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition

May I add the following to this article? No matter about the past, President Trump said clearly during his press conference that he has no dealings with Russia. I think it is important to take him at his word instead of arranging a bunch of sentences like we have in Donald_Trump#Affiliations with Russia that never reach a conclusion. I hope NPR is acceptable as a news source: they published a transcript and I don't know of any criticism of their reporting by either the right or left. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In a February 16, 2017 press conference, Trump said, "And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia."

References

What Trump said in that quote is not a rebuttal to the sources given in Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, which detail 3 decades of meetings, trips, proposals and failed initiatives. Trump's rebuttal seems to be a straw-man argument, honestly. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the article Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, if it hasn't been already. I also think it should be added to our existing paragraph - without removing any of the existing material. But let's talk about that paragraph in our article. It certainly doesn't deserve a level-one heading of its own. Maybe it could be a subsection under "careers" or the "election" section? --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree on inclusion, and also on the level-one heading, and the content overall. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. If you can improve this I hope you will. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be added, but the section needs to be re-titled and re-written. Trump has no affiliations with Russia, although he has had business dealings with people in Russian although fewer than he has had with people in Canada, the UK and many other countries. It is an allegation against him and should be treated as such. TFD (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — A primary source, and is rebutted by numerous reliable secondary sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See Fact-checking Donald Trump's Feb. 16 press conference — Politifact

Umm, what are you opposing? The proposal here is to include Donald Trump's own comment about connection with Russia. He would normally be allowed to speak for himself though a primary source. You think we should not allow him to speak? Has his disavowal been "rebutted"? --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Its inclusion of course. He is allowed to speak for himself, but there is no reason why this merits inclusion on Wikipedia — especially as there is evidence of a him expressing a large degree of falsehood. Better to cite sources that are known to be reliable — which in this case indicate what was said is likely false or at least dubious. As it stands you are including an objectively unreliably source; which is only subjectively notable — without giving as much as a nod to reliably sourced refutation. While there may not be articles refuting this specific iteration of the claim, it's been repeated over and over — and any reliably sourced refutation is enough. In its current form the section is WP:UNDUE.

See:

• Fact-checking Trump's claim that he has no business ties to Russia Vox
• Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin — Washington Post

What's also notable is how the statement is a tautology — if we're to take him by his word that he has left, resigned, stepped down, or passed on ownership of all his companies — that means he has no business dealings anywhere. This clearly does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We do report, in multiple articles, that he said he was resigning all management positions with his companies, but that he is retaining his ownership interests. He still has plenty of business interests. Following the lead of Reliable Sources, we report his saying that he does not have an active management role in his businesses. But he still owns them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per CF. Keiiri (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The title of the section has been changed to "Ties to Russia" which is better IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: What about changing it to "Alleged ties to Russia." SW3 5DL (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think his ties to Russia are too well established for that. Some of the ties are through third parties, but there is plenty of evidence for his own direct connections. For example, holding a beauty pageant in Russia is a tie, isn't it? And we have the word of Donald Trump Jr. that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." [37]--MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yupp, the existence of ties is not alleged. Their implications are debatable, but not their existence. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: A beauty pageant 'tie' is a business tie. It does not make him a member of the Russian government. All I'm suggesting is that it be clear we are not suggestion any tie to the government. He is not a secret agent, he is not from Russia, he has no family in Russia. He did what other business leaders have done, he took advantage of the business opportunities in Russia. .SW3 5DL (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely correct, as much business-folk avoid Russia — in large part because being successful (that is turning a profit) is said to require going through the Russian government. In addition to that most (if not all) oligarchs have direct ties to the Kremlin, which means that any business-associate large enough to deal with Trump constitutes a government tie. There are ample sources stating this, and I would believe you were at least aware of the position. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Navigating a country's policies for doing business inside that country does not make any businessman a member of that country's government. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @SW3 5DL: Your logical fallacy is: strawman. Nobody has claimed that he is a "member of the Russian government" or a "secret agent" or "from Russia" or any of that. There is nothing in the article, or in this discussion, to suggest anything like this. We are pointing out the obvious, well documented fact that he has TIES to Russia. He certainly seems to have business ties, as well as more personal ties through third parties. He has denied having any business ties to Russia (specifically that he owns nothing there, has no loans there, and has no deals there; that could be strictly true and yet leave open other possible ties). I would like to include his denial in the article for balance, but there is not yet consensus in this discussion to do so. -MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. SW3, did you leave out the word "not" from your last sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. What I meant is that it seems it can be construed as Trump colluding with the Russians, as some news outlets and politicians are suggesting. That's their strawman, not mine. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think anyone has said that Trump was a member of the Russian government. When it comes to aspects of doing business in Russia, all one needs to do is look to the sources. A good overview, which does not relate to Trump [38] states:

State-owned enterprises dominate all the strategic sectors, such as energy, transport and banking, and account for about half of GDP. Taking this as a starting point, this article examines the informal [business] rules and practices that have developed in Russia. The paper first investigates the specific characteristics of these rules and practices. In particular, it focuses on systematic corruption, systemic favouritism and institutional ambiguity as the main political risks.

That article may give you an inkling as to what is meant when articles discussing Trumps Russian business ties state they are embroidled with government. Quite a few newspapers have referred to that paper. A simpler overview may be from the NYT Pervasive Corruption in Russia Is 'Just Called Business'

I'm not linking these because I'm suggesting they belong in the article or provide in-depth analysis of Trump's dealings, but they may give some insight. Other articles are less in depth about these issues, but relate more strongly to Trump's connections.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a decision been taken to delete SusanLesch's edit here? It seemed it was okay early on, but as far as removing, it seems that's not been decided yet, the arguments against are still ongoing, or so I thought. What is the objection at Trump speaking for himself? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There has not been a decision. SusanLesch added it; Carl Fredrik deleted it; per the Discretionary Sanctions we will need consensus before we can re-add it. I personally don't understand the objections to it, but discussion is still ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw, I didn't re-add per the ds. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"C-class. The article may ... need editing for ... balance ... or contain policy violations, such as bias." The sources in this particular section date back no further than six months, a common sign of a news spike. As for the image (dated February 16), I think it helps a dispassionate reader understand why the article itself has occasional overtones of spirited protest. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry I had never heard of discretionary sanctions until now. This policy sounds all right to me, in that a minority view can conceivably prevail. Please correct me if I overlooked something, but Carl Fredrik seems to be the only person here who disagrees with including the quote. Carl, I don't live in a country in which the president is not a reliable source, and I think any reporter working for any reliable source is as likely to speak with a forked tongue as he is (you might recall for example, Judith Miller and The New York Times). You have cited several secondary discussions of the press conference. I am in favor of any one of them as long as some of the president's actual words are part of what we add. Also, per WP:WELLKNOWN, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." (Here by "reported" the guidelines mean included.) So I leave it to you. Can you please select a source that you like and re-add the quote? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is at least one other use above opposing the passage. I think a quote is undue in part because it carries with it a lot of rhetoric and the article is already running rather long. I would prefer something like:

Trump has As of February 2017 denied any current deals, ownership or loans in Russia, however multiple sources have discussed his previous business dealings with Russia, some of which were with figures close to Putin and the Kremlin.

Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Instead of paraphrasing him and then immediately, in the same sentence, contradicting him, we should use his actual quote and let it stand. The previous information in the paragraph has already explained his previous business dealings in detail, it would be UNDUE to expound it again just as a way of rebutting him. (P.S. His quote is very short and simple; it does not contain "a lot of rhetoric"; and your paraphrase-plus-rebuttal is actually longer.) I think we should re-insert his quote at the end of the paragraph.--MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree. The proposed edit sounds like we're saying we don't believe his statement because sources can prove he's a liar and they can prove he's always been in cahoots with the Russians. Support reinstating quote at end of paragraph as MelanieN suggests. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That is what we're saying. There is too little mention of Russian business dealings as is, and we are only aggravating this problem by including his statement — especially so as it is WP:RECENTISM. He's said this more than once, why choose to include it now? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CFCF. To answer your question, I proposed this now because the press conference where he said this was the first of his presidency (or at least the first one I noticed). I agree with MelanieN and SW3 5DL. Your suggestion started out helpful but got derailed at "however multiple sources...". Using Reuters, which is an independent agency as far as I know, how about the following? Much shorter than your proposal. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In a February 2017 press conference, Trump said, "I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia."

References

This quote looks representative and WP:DUE to me. Trump has repeated this stance dozens of times, so that an attributed direct quote is better than paraphrase-plus-weaseling-innuendo. We should present the accusations and the denials equally; readers can make up their mind without hand-holding. — JFG ^talk 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is appropriate, because it entirely ignores all the reliably sourced comments discussing how Trump has done quite a lot of business with Russia — and how if we are to take him by his word, should not even be aware of whether he has deals with Russia or not.
Two strong sources that could be used:

• For Trump, Three Decades of Chasing Deals in Russia — NY Times
• Contradicting Trump on Russia: Russian Officials — NY Times — actually discusses his recent quote and why it is incorrect:

“I have nothing to do with Russia,” he told reporters on Thursday. “To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”
The denial stands at odds with statements by Russian officials, who have at least twice acknowledged contacts with aides to Mr. Trump before the election.

Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik, please stop trying to include a rebuttal as part of Trump's denials. The Russian officials, the FBI revelations, the comment by Donald Trump Jr., the longstanding Russia connections of Rex Tillerson - these things are already in the paragraph, or should be. Give him one sentence quoting his denials; the rest of the paragraph stands as the rebuttal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not our place to include a rebuttal. That seems synthetic to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's our place to include a rebuttal if the rebuttal is mentioned in reliable sources. Of course it isn't synthesis... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We are obligated to include Trump's comments by Wikipedia BLP guidelines. The President has denied these allegations, and his denial must be included (WP:WELLKNOWN). Carl and Keiiri, will you please either restore the quote or propose one to your liking? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Start an RfC about it, that might generate new suggestions. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's views on Islam

I tagged this page with the "Critics of Islam" category. Trump speaks of terrorism and Islam as if they were nearly synonymous. On the record, he has stated that "Islam hates us" and that there is "tremendous hatred" within the religion itself. (Source). It would be nice to add that somewhere. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this pending further discussion here. While I think the categorization might be accurate, it also seems controversial and with a highly visible BLP, I think there should be a consensus for inclusion before it is added. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by a peronal are insufficient, you need to provide secondary sources. Also, these categories exist as a navigation device for readers who want to know more about a subject. So someone interested in anti-Islamism/Islamophobia would find it convenient to find names of people such as Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson and Frank Gaffney, who have spoken extensively on the subject and organized against Islam. Their articles cover the issue extensively. TFD (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, we should avoid category creep. BLPs should be categorized according to what their subjects are strongly associated with, otherwise we would have famous people listed in hundreds and hundreds of categories. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree we should not include it. People are constantly trying to add him to categories as a way of labeling him that would not be acceptable in the article itself. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New undisclosed loan

On Feb. 23, 2017, it was revealed he has a $50 million undisclosed loan + at least $713 million additional loan[39]. Create a loan section.Kuioooooo (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this is noteworthy, unless it is by a foreign government. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Too iffy. Requires an additional source and some reason that it's notable. Objective3000 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Potentially notable and due, just not now. Give it 48+ hours and we can see. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article size

This article is pretty big and needs to be split or cut immediately. It exceeds the post-expansion include size for templates, and the templates below the "References" section will not display if there is even a single template added to this page. This is not an easy decision, so a discussion on splitting or cutting should be held ASAP. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is so big, in fact, the "prosesize.js" page size Javascript tool craps out and can't cope with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

All of his political positions have their own articles now. Just now I trimmed a lot of detail from those sections, but I think we should consider having NO detail in the policy sections - just links to the spinoff articles. We could trim a great deal of detail from the business sections as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be consistent with a summary style article, which is more or less essential for a BLP on a world leader nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am moving the articles and transcluding them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am transcluding the sections so this article is not excessively large. I acted as per WP:BOLD, but as per WP:BRD we must discuss. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I have never seen article content transcluded that way. Transclusions do not affect article size for readability or rendering purposes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: You declined the speedy deletion and said that it was a legitimate use of sub-page. Could you please way in on this discussion? I am not sure about the technical details of transclusion however I assumed that it did affect article size for rendering purposes, but I understand that it obviously doesn't for readability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Blush! I may have acted hastily as I haven't been able to locate any WikiScripture legitimizing this approach. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if their is no policy supporting this unique case, could you please explain the technical details of transculsion and if it would affect article size for rendering? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: It has no effect on rendering size. Like templates, all the HTML has to be sent and rendered on the PC. And this is far from a unique case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean on the user side, but on the server side. Would it or would it nor fix the WP:PEIS problem mentioned above? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: No. Read WP:PEIS please. "Whenever the parser is instructed by the source code of a page to expand a template etc. (that is, to replace it by transclusion or substitution)..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Theodore Micah Tarter 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No edit was requested. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It is biased to imply Trump had a special relationship with Russia

Russia was not sanctioned until 2014. Before that, every American businessman had business ties in Russia. It is a big market. Heck, even today GM and McDonald's have facilities in Russia. Implying that Trump had a special relationship with Russia because Trump had business ties in Russia is a bias that should not be tolerated on wikipedia. 69.166.122.249 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pertaining to another discussion, I have recently nuked this POV section and replaced it with a couple sentences on the Russian election intervention and Trump dossier stories. — JFG ^talk 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I object to your unilaterally removing that section. We don't have room for even one sentence of Trump's view but this move was too extreme. Just today my Congressman called for an special prosecutor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: There is no consensus for these "nuke" edits, surely not an absurd analogy from an IP SPA. Please undo your edits and propose your case here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's war on the media

This is an article which should be written. It is a very notable and huge topic, with myriad sources. The seriousness of the subject is also of great importance, since it is possibly the greatest threat to America and democracy we have ever witnessed. Here is just one source to whet your apetites:

• Donald Trump's war on media is 'biggest threat to democracy' says Navy Seal who brought down Osama Bin Laden, Charlotte England, The Independent, February 24, 2017

• <ref name="England_2/24/2017">{{cite web | last=England | first=Charlotte | title=Donald Trump's war on media is 'biggest threat to democracy' says Navy SEAL who brought down Osama Bin Laden | website=The Independent | date=February 24, 2017 | url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-war-media-press-threat-democracy-navy-seal-osama-bin-laden-william-h-mcraven-operation-a7596856.html | accessdate=February 25, 2017}}</ref>

Who wants to start writing it? If I had the time, I'd do it, but I'm busy on other stuff. It could start as a section here, and then get split off when it gets too large for this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like it is becoming a noteworthy topic, but if it happens it needs a title that is less Mother Jones/Democratic Underground-ish. "Donald Trump's media relations", as I'm sure there will be room to discuss his friendly relations with Fox, Breitbart, etc... TheValeyard (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Election summary in lead: further actions

Trying to summarize where we are standing after the latest round of discussion:

• The paragraph summarizing the election in the lead should remain short;
• Most of the current wording is stable and agreed upon;
• The last part mentioning the popular vote situation keeps being discussed.

There are three proposals on the table on how to phrase this last part:

• (A) the fifth elected with a smaller share of the popular vote
• (B) the fifth to lose the popular vote
• (C) the fifth to receive fewer votes than his opponent

plus the status quo option:

• (S) the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote

Judging by the perennial re-ignition of this debate, it seems that the (S) option is unsatisfactory to a number of regular editors and new readers coming to the talk page; however it was also deemed "not too bad" and the last RfC resulted in no consensus, so we kept the status quo. There is also agreement that circuitous discussion among a small group of regulars here has reached the limits of the consensus-building effort, becoming repetitive and counter-productive. The logical next step would be to submit one or several variants above to RfC. My opinion is that any RfC should offer a binary choice, otherwise it is pretty much guaranteed to end up with no consensus again. No matter what we do next, the goal should be to establish a firm enough consensus about this phrasing so it can be confidently listed in the #Current consensus section.

Now, let's take a poll for what to do next:

• Option 1: do nothing, stop discussing this;
• Option 2: pick the "best two" variants among A, B and C, and submit them to RfC; if one of them wins, it gains established consensus status, otherwise nothing changes;
• Option 3: pick only one of the A B C variants at random (say A), and pit it against status quo S in an RfC; if that fails, repeat with variant B; if that fails, repeat with variant C; if that fails, S remains and gains established consensus status;
• Option 4: eliminate one of the ABC variants by local consensus of regulars, then apply option 3 with the two remaining variants.

What do you all think? — JFG ^talk 11:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll responses

• Option 2, submitting B and C to RfC. — JFG ^talk 11:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 5 - delete this unnecessary and overcomplicated new section that actually misses other wording choices and continue the discussion in the previous section! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Best Option: Support topic ban for JFG. At this very moment, the article needs emergent attention as it is on the brink, stuffed as it is with nit-picking nonsense edits. This is another example of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Emergency RFC: Dividing the "Donald Trump" article

The Trump presidency is only a month old, and we are 3 times over the limit of human readability and are causing WP:CHOKING access and possibly display problems. "intitle:Donald Trump" yielded "311 KB (28,385 words)" at 12:19, 25 February 2017". WP:TOOBIG guidelines say an article > 100 kB should be divided.

Several prominent articles will serve as destinations for bits removed: Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Business career of Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, Donald Trump in popular culture, Political positions of Donald Trump, Miss USA, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, Trump Model Management, Trump University, List of things named after Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, United States presidential election, 2016, United States presidential debates, 2016, Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Protests against Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, Formation of Donald Trump's cabinet, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Executive Order 13769, Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration, Social policy of the Donald Trump administration, Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and Public image of Donald Trump.

Kudos to User:epicgenius for Talk:Donald_Trump#Article_size and to User:Scjessey and User:MelanieN who replied. Deferring to the experienced editors of this article, I propose the following:

• We start work on a copy in the Talk space. Because MediaWiki software can handle it, I propose simple one-colored yellow markup for every bit that can be moved. HTML comments can explain their destination.
• The article be < 100 kB by March 15.
• "Awards, honors, and distinctions" could be a new article (citations add to article size).

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note for interested editors: Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12729 words) "readable prose size" (which is what WP:TOOBIG refers to) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I don't use Javascript. But when someone gives me the argument that I can't quote President Trump because of no room, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you're using the wrong benchmark number for WP:TOOBIG. I have no opinion on whether or not if content should be split off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)