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 consensuses

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 consensuses]], item [n].

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

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

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

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

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

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 Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn.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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Open RfCs

• #RfC on including "false" in the lede
• #RfC: Adding Trump Organization leadership onto non-officeholder template?
• #RfC: Election summary in the lede
• #RfC: How to mention Donald's children in the infobox

Is it time to re-think the "false" comment in the lede?

(Restored from archive until RfC stemming from this discussion is closed) — JFG ^talk 17:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In reading through the entire lede section, it strikes me that the last two sentences:

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests, while more nationwide protests followed his election to the presidency.

...seem out of place. They were appropriate while he was a candidate, and might still be appropriate if candidacy was as far as he got. They have survived per consensus developed during the campaign. But now that this is becoming a biographical article about a soon-to-be president of the U.S., they seem a little jarring, a little bit "what is this doing there?" - something whose relevance may have passed. The material is already present in the text and should remain, but might it be time to remove it from the lede? Should we have another RfC to see if consensus has changed? --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Many of the statements have been false and easly verified as such. We don't censor Wikipedia and it seems rather important for someone who is going to be President.Casprings (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a minority school of thought that we should avoid making content decisions based on the fact that the election was impending, and I don't mind being in that minority. It would follow that we should avoid making content decisions based on the fact that the election is past. If his pattern was motivated by his desire to win the election, and it changes now, one could argue that the content is stale and less relevant, but that remains to be seen. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the election hubbub died down, several questions have been asked by uninvolved readers about this specific part of the lede, so a new discussion is probably warranted. The essential differences of opinion seem to be whether that statement should be attributed rather than stated in WP voice, and whether the perennial "or false" should just go and leave "controversial", which nobody denies. I fear a long discussion… — JFG ^talk 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. MelanieN, I'm really surprised that you would propose this. Falsehoods don't become truths, and their significance doesn't diminish, because the subject is becoming President. If anything, the past several weeks have shown that he continues to make false statements.- MrX 18:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Which make it more historically significant.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• No The false things he said as a candidate don't suddenly become true now. He's continued the same patterns of falsehoods since becoming President-elect. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I changed "have been controversial or false" to "were controversial or false" because we're in a campaign context there. I saw that as an uncontroversial edit, but some may disagree, saying that it implies that the pattern has ended. I don't think it necessarily implies that and I stand by the edit while being revertable. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, by no means, like it is not time to re-think if 1+1=7 wasn't false but only "controversial", too. --SI 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment : It would be nice to see the actual quotes in their entirety. Did Trump make the general statement that he opposed nuclear proliferation and later qualified that a 'couple' of countries however might be better off e.g.given the situation with North Korea? Did Trump actually make the flat out and obtuse claim that "more counties should acquire nuclear weapons"? To whom did he make this comment? It's hard to determine exactly what's going on here going by this highly partisan and clearly anti-Trump web-cite. Looks like one of Trump's many gutter-snipes were trying to make 2+2 look like 100. Are there neutral sources that outline this affair and give us Trump's first quote, in context, and then compares it to Trump's allegedly contradictory second quote, in context? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mixed feelings. Yes.

The claim that many of Trump's statements were "controversial or false" may act as a helpful flag to alert the reader that this is very much a C-class article. Most readers can easily spot the logical fallacy. According to CMOS, "one of the statements joined by the conjunction ["or"] ... may [itself] be false." (¶ 5.198, Disjunctive Conjunctions.) Cf. Lunsford, 4th ed., under "Flashpoints of Logical Argument: Equivocation". Illustration: Many of MelanieN's statements have been controversial or false. (As far as I know, however, none of them have been false.)

The article body cites two reputable sources for the claim that "many of his statements have been" controversial or false. Both sources are dated December 21, 2015. According to CMOS, the present perfect tense "denotes an act, state, or condition that ... continues up to the present".

Also, the article body cites Bezos's newspaper as a reputable source for a claim about one of Clinton's several adversaries. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC) 03:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I've voiced my concerns here. The closer of the first RFC stated "my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy." This has not been done. The statement is not citing an example, but generalizing the body of Trump's statements. "Many of his statements" is a judgement quantifying a large quantity of his statements as false, relative to truth. We have sources that support that view, which is fine, but there are sources that report disagreement with it as well. The sentence is expressing an opinion (or assessment) about facts and thus should be attributed - or at the least, not spoken in Wikivoice. Morphh ^(talk) 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes – The lead is not the place to make a blanket characterization of a person's trustworthiness, in WP's voice to boot. I said that before the election and I'll repeat it afterwards, and I did say it for both candidates who were painted as liars during the campaign. The campaign section of Trump's bio is worded more carefully than the lead: it makes appropriate, quantified and attributed statements on Trump's "truthful hyperbole". Nevertheless the lead should convey some sense of the controversial and inflammatory nature of Trump's campaign. Here's a suggestion to amend the text:

His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention due to his unconventional policies, controversial statements and bolsterous style.

Would this be an acceptable turn of phrase? — JFG ^talk 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No. We went through an RfC that had wide participation, was based on reliable sources, and rebutted every argument made so far in this discussion.- MrX 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. This phrase is much better. Ag97 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Trump is prone to hyperbolic statements. I have seen this stated elsewhere and was going to mention it, thx JFG for articulating my thoughts Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes -- One sided and highly contested claims don't belong in the lede. Generally agree with JFG's proposal here. This is certainly more neutral and doesn't try to present issues with many variables involved as absolute fact as many of the partisan "sources" attempt to do. However, I have to wonder about "unprecedented media coverage". (Even more than Obama's campaign??) Since when has the media 'not covered' presidential campaigns as much as Trump's? Who made this claim? The media? Anyway, JFG is on the right track. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no other "side" to the provable fact that Trump makes false statements. A lot of them. - MrX 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment : If any 'fact' is provable, we'll need more than the say so of the sort of article that is too often used to cite these things. Re: Trump's quotes about nuclear proliferation, I asked for clarity, quotes, context, and all we're getting here is the recital of evasive and generic claims that doesn't address Trump's actual quotes. And any "fact" can be taken out of context and presented in a misleading way, as is so often practiced by the media. We'll need to see the actual quotes, in context, before we entertain the machinations of disgruntled gutter snipes and jump leap to their conclusions. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please consult the RfC and the sources presented therein, including Pulitzer prize wining publications that gave very specific details. Most of us are tired of proving this over and over, and we are moving well into WP:DEADHORSE territory at his point.- MrX 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you apparently can't supply the actual before and after quotes, in context, you telling me to 'go fish'. Sure. Yes, we need to keep opinionated accounts of any false statements out of the lede, and elsewhere, unless there is absolute proof, presented in context. Thanx again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Demanding more an more proof, and exceptional proof beyond what is required by our policies, for something that has been settled by consensus is tendentious, and is not conduct that is acceptable in articles about U.S. politics. Please stop doing that.- MrX 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed". As you said, it's being challenged over and over again, thus by your own words and BLP policy, it must be explicitly attributed. Morphh ^(talk) 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You conveniently omitted "... which is usually done with an inline citation."- MrX 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"explicit attribution" is not the same as "inline citation" - they're not exclusive. A citation is always required - fact or opinion. Inline attribution, saying who "explicitly" makes the claim, is done for challenged material. Morphh ^(talk) 17:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your attempted interpretation of this sentence is baffling to me. It says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." - MrX 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I read explicit attribution as a reference to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and separate from the accompanying footnote. The phrase "which is usually done with" means the attribution is done along with the citation to substantiate it. Morphh ^(talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Further reading takes me to WP:BLPSOURCES though, which doesn't contain the same "explicit" term that makes me think "inline". It doesn't help that attribution has multiple meanings on Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree that that needs clarification. My understanding of the word attribution is that it refers to prose like "according to". But that can't possibly mean that we can't use wiki voice for anything that has been challenged regardless of the merit of the challenge. Challenges are cheap and easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes -- This statement is highly biased. Every politician says some things that are false. The FBI director accused Hillary Clinton of lying, so why isn't that in the lead of her article? Wikipedia is so biased, this website is a complete joke. Ag97 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes -- But not only in the lead. A good example is his claim that millions of people voted illegally being "false". It's false that he has absolute evidence of it, but it's otherwise completely plausible based on self reporting surveys of illegals voting in past elections and intentions to vote in this one (between 13 and 15%). Yet in this article and other media reports, it is described as a "false claim". It is an unproven claim, but you cannot anymore claim it is false than he can assert it is absolutely true. Another his saying it's false the Clinton campaign started birtherism. They absolutely floated it during the 2008 primaries. Whether this means Clinton herself had a hand in it or not, there's no concrete evidence of that, but you'd have to assume she'd given the OK for the various fishing expeditions and leaking to the press her campaign did about Obama's origins. So again, it is not "false" - it is "disputed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment : Trump's concern for illegal voting certainly has a lot of basis, given the fact that outfits like ACORN (which was disbanded in 2010 after mounting public exposure) had a long history {1, 2 3, 4, 5) of voter registration fraud, who concentrate their efforts in the big cities and have been indicted and/or convicted on numerous occasions for their dirty deeds. There are recent events to consider also. 1, 2. When you consider that the Democrats stonewalled the effort to require identification for voter registration it should come as no surprise that many of Clinton's votes could possibly be fraudulent. There is already a media/source war going on about the affair. Expressing a reservation about this sordid affair is not making a false statement, and referring to Trump's reservations about voter fraud as a "false statement" is actually the false statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is, simply put, fringe-theory nonsense. No reliable or credible source anywhere supports the idea that Trump's statement "certainly has a lot of basis." To the contrary, the universe of reliable journalistic and academic sources addressing this point unambiguously describe the claim as false and without evidence. See Washington Post ("a bogus claim," "unsubstantiated"); CNN ("without evidence," "no evidence"); Fortune ("Studies Contradict Trump Claim That Voter Fraud Is 'Very, Very Common'"); FactCheck.org ("unsubstantiated urban myths"). Neutrality^talk 23:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, given the long sordid history of provable voter fraud, and the blocked attempts to require identification for voter registration, this just comes off as partisan denial. Again, referring to Trump's concerns about voter fraud as "false statements" or "fringe" are the false statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you have no response at all to the expert assessment. Let me sum up my reaction: you are entitled to your belief, but it is empirically false and should carry zero weight in deciding what content to include in this encyclopedia. Neutrality^talk 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is unfortunately a very very big difference between an expert opinion based on minimal observation in this particular case and something being "empirically false." The only way we could make such a statement would be if there were a thorough review of the matter which made basically the same statement. I am no particular fan of Trump, but I do think that statements by media prior to or without thorough investigation are a long way from being "empirical" facts. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• No - This has been discussed at length and no reason has been provided to change the decision. Calling people 'gutter snipes' certainly doesn't convince. Objective3000 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and I endorse JFG's proposed text above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am still waiting to see if there is a need to re-open this discussion, but I do object to the proposed wording from JFG. Where are the Reliable Sources to support the phrase "boisterous style"? If we remove "false" we should simply leave the sentence as "many of his statements... have been controversial." Or else we could qualify it with something like "many of his statements... have been controversial, and some have been characterized by multiple commentators as false". In the meantime Morphh makes a good point about attribution, and I will add something. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that there have been at least a few sources discussing his off-the-cuff presentation and sometimes possibly willfully inflammatory comments. Alternately, maybe replacing "false" with "inaccurate" or something similar might work. "False" might be seen by some as more strongly indicating the willful inaccuracy of statements than the word "inaccurate" might. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I stole the phrasing suggested by MelanieN, many controversial + some false, and put together my own variation in a suggestion down further below. I believe that the questions are now the following: #1, do we have enough support to change from many-controversial-or-false, to a new version which has many-controversial-and-some-false. Question #2, is there enough support to insert a sentence, or a sentence-clause, which links the many-controversial-statements portion with the unprecedented-media-coverage-portion, as suggested by JFG and then stolen-and-re-suggested in an altered form by myself below, with cites. I think that question#0, on whether to remove 'false' entirely and just say 'controversial' is unlikely to get adopted; I also think that replacing false with inaccurate, is a non-starter, but I don't care much one way or the other, if somebody wants to officially pose that as a proposal then we can see what happens. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• No - The falsehoods were not just a major theme of his campaign, but also a major part of his life and career, and historically significant. Additionally, the importance of the falsehoods continues afterward. For example, the sources report that Trump's unambiguously false post-election claim that there was massive voter fraud, and that he actually won the popular vote, is without precedent in U.S. history. See, e.g., Yahoo News ("stunning" ... "remarkable and unprecedented for a victorious presidential candidate to claim widespread voter fraud"); Politico ("an unprecedented rebuke of the U.S. electoral system by a president-elect and met with immediate condemnation from voting experts," quoting Richard L. Hasen); CNN ("It's an unprecedented allegation by a president-elect."). Given all this, it should be in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Given all what? Trump has concerns about voter fraud, and justifiably so. Can you show us the actual quote where Trump says there was cases of documented voter fraud, or can all you provide us are the concerns he expressed? Sorry, only provable facts should be considered for the lede, not partisan out of context sniping. Trump believes vote fraud played a role. No one can prove this, but otoh, is there proof that his concerns are, in fact, wrong? Expressing a belief is not a false statement unless you can prove it to be wrong. Let's be clear about that distinction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is literally a textbook example of the argument from ignorance (no, you can't make a wild claim and then demand that objectors "prove a negative"). In any case, it's clear that nothing will ever change your mind, including the universal assessment of the experts. See PolitiFact: "Experts dismissed the substance of Trump’s tweet. 'This is patently false,' said Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University political scientist. ... Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz added, '... he is simply repeating baseless claims.'" And University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket said the claim is short on basic logic."). Neutrality^talk 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

People can make statements about their concerns all they like, and given the history of voter fraud in the past, expressing such a concern is understandable. Basic probability evidently escapes Mr. Masket. Trump's concerns have a basis in past events and are justified. Q. What's to stop an illegal immigrant from registering to vote? A. Not a thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. I have been against the addition of this from the very beginning and my stance will not change now that he is president. --Chase | ^talk 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• YES - Unless we are going to go through all politician pages and add this comment it is not only irrelevant but extremely biased and was written for that reason. That's not even considering the fact that the source is PolitiFact, owned by Tampa Bay Times which endorsed Hillary Clinton and PolitiFact has its own history of bending the truth. Some of the claims included in the source turned out to be true. The argument that "this is a trait of his whole life" is biased and anyone exhibiting that should be blocked from editing this page because they seem incapable of separating their opinions from academic record. If this is to be an encyclopedia and not just a soap-box for the internet to shout from then all bias needs to be removed from the statement. -- The fact that this is even a matter of debate ought to demonstrate that the statement does not belong. Velostodon (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a gross violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. The line but extremely biased and was written for that reason makes this a broad-based, unprovoked attack against many editors. Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment : This is getting so typical: Avoid the issue and fire away with accusations. Velostoden makes a very valid point and has not personally attacked anyone, and he/she certainly has not pushed the envelope of civility or violated any other guidelines. If the same few editors exhibit a continued trend to include the negative and block the positive, and repeatedly use clearly partisan sources to support their effort, then they forfeit AGF considerations and should be called on this behavior. Having said that, a general criticism about bias was made and no personal accusations were ever made as was done just now. Trying to bully editors with opposing views with such exaggerated accusations is not the way to go here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Velostodon ignored the issue and fired away with accusations. He specifically stated that editors purposely added bias and should be blocked without a shred of evidence. You added to this because you don't like a WP:RS. Again, this is not the place to debate WP:RS. Edits like this are not usefule Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, some of the sources are clearly biased, and as such, editors have a right to express their concerns when they are used to prop up opinion. While Velostoden may have used a broad brush in reference to editors, he/she was not off the mark with the way things are often censured or selected in the article. I will say this much, calling for a block was not called for. Any issues can be resolved here on the talk page. Face it, this is a controversial topic and feelings, whether veiled or obvious, seem to be playing a role in what's allowed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss content not editors. Generally, when you start talking about "same few editors" etc. you've sort of conceded the argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• No - we had a huge RfC on it and nothing has really changed. The only possible alteration I can see is to generalize it to many of his current statements.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Please keep bias out of the lede and elsewhere in the article. If there are facts to be presented they will speak for themselves. We have already seen accusations that Trump's warranted concern for voter fraud constitute a "false statement" and a willingness to stick this sort of thing in the lede. No thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• No - per Neutrality, MrX, Volunteer Marek and others. Trump's difficult relationship with "the truth" and "facts" is something that's been well reported on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that being reported is not the primary issue or even inclusion. The primary issue is taking a generalization, making an assessment as to quantity of lies compared to truth, and then stating it as fact in WikiVoice, like we're saying the capital of France is Paris. There is disagreement on quantity and what qualifies as a lie - we have sources that dispute the assessment. How is this not attributed in any way? You're absolutely right that Trump's difficult relationship with "the truth" and "facts" is something that's been well reported and their assessment is a valid one, but that is what it is.. a judgement, which when generalized and quantified is a disputed one. Morphh ^(talk) 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'd also point out, Gwillhickers, that you've commented on the contributions of at least five other editors already, while also making your own contribution. That isn't necessary or indeed desirable. Your own contribution should stand for itself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No editor, including myself, is above criticism. And alas, you have just made your own criticism about me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Bastun may be referring to the message of the essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which I believe is widely accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Let Gwillhickers comment. I don't see any badgering here or anything, just a back and forth, which is fine. Whether it's effective is another matter, but please don't say it's not "desirable", at least not yet, after a couple of comments. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "a couple" of comments, it's eight comments after those of five other editors, and is a definitely a case of WP:BLUDGEON. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• No. There has already been an RfC regarding the sentence. The statement is an objective truth and has been repeatedly proven as such, with further sources having been added for it earlier today. It is also highly relevant given that he is the President-elect. This dispute is a textbook dead horse. AndrewOne (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Tricksy but does need improvement. "Many of his statements... have been controversial or false." We can elide discussion of the 'controversial' bit and simply consider whether or not wikipedia should say in wikipedia's voice that "many of his statements have been false" ... with some wikipedians preferring to go with the even stronger variation that "many of his statements were false" from comments in this RfC. It is undoubtedly correct to say that Trump has made at least one false statement, at some point in time. It is undoubtedly correct to say that Trump has made at least one truthful statement, at some point in time. Thus the real question is not whether we should say false, the real question is whether we should characterize MANY of his statements as false. This is a question of relative quantity. Politicians make many false statements. Trump is a politician. Thus, Trump makes many false statements. That is invalid logic. Correct logic goes like this: Compared to other candidates, Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number [compared to other candidates] were called out as being false. Now, that's pretty wordy, and we can trim the wording slightly, but only if we don't mutate the meaning. The current short sentence, which flat out says "Many of his statements... false" is being TOO BRIEF to give the readership a correct understanding. But I suggest there is a wider concept we need to convey: Trump is known for cleverly using Truthful Hyperbole as a means of standing out from the crowd (sixteen major candidates for the nomination), but also as a means of getting attention, and specifically as a means of manipulating the media into giving him earned coverage. Trump is saying controversial things ON PURPOSE, more than not. (Don't have a cite for that handy however -- so we cannot speak of intent -- but we CAN speak of impact/outcome.) My suggestion is that we say something like this:

"Compared to other candidates, Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number were criticized as being outright false. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any candidate (perhaps ever)."

References

For example, one of his very first controversial statements was that as potus he would build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it. He gave no explanation for how. He published no plan to make it happen. It almost sounds nonsensical, and causes double-takes: did he *really* say that? He did say it. It did draw attention. Whether it was true or not remains to be seen, but I will note that NAFTA is likely to be re-negotiated. The bit about Trump already being a celebrity was also important -- when a random crazy person says something that sounds nonsensical, the media does not cover it, but when a billionaire with a long history in the entertainment business says it, front page news is the outcome. "Boisterous style" ain't the half of it, in other words. Trump is unlike almost all potus candidates in 2016, and arguably unlike all potus candidates of any prior cycle, in that by saying controversial things he *got* media coverage, rather than the usual strategy exemplified by Clinton of avoiding unfavorable coverage and limiting media exposure generally. He spent so little money on paid media coverage, because he didn't need it. This was not an accident; it was a direct consequence of his Truthful Hyperbole,™ which served him well in his real estate career, served him well in television career, and served him well in his potus campaign. It is part and parcel of the biographical subject, that not only did he "say controversial things" but that he stoked controversy so much his motto might as well have been Tweet Brashly And Carry A Big Schtick. Wikipedia needs to convey some of this core truth to the readership; anybody can tell a lie, but Trump has what can only be described as a vast talent. "Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much." (Which is straight from Honest Abe.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion: It looks to me as if this is controversial enough to require a new RfC. I have adopted some of the suggestions here to propose four options. See below. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No. That someone becomes US President doesn't change atomic fact. Numerous fact checkers have investigated and rejected the veracity of such notable campaign statements. 'False' is actually a pretty padded descriptor of untrue assertions, otherwise more colloquially known as 'lies.' 71.91.30.188 (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on including "false" in the lede

Close requested 15 January. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Options

Option 1: Keep the existing wording:

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

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

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

Option 3: Proposed new wording:

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

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

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

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

Option 5:

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

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

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

NEW

Late addition: Option 1A

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

Late addition: Option 1B

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

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

References

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option #6 (just added), but could agree to Option 3 and 4. Would also be fine with including fact checker attribution to 6 and I'm fine with alternative terms to false. Added a new option 6, because I didn't like any of the others. We can't leave #1 because it's in WikiVoice and the generalization of the body of statements and the selective assessment of statements is someone's judgement, which makes it subjective. It needs to be attributed outside of WikiVoice Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1, seeing as nothing seems to have changed regarding its validity. Oppose #2 strongly unless someone can demonstrate that the veracity of his statements has changed; if it hasn't WP:DUE requires the inclusion of the material. The "reference frame" of NPOV compliance (=when an article is neutral) is set by reliable sources, not by some kind of "balance". About #3, it seemed to me that the veracity of claims is based on comparing the number of falsehoods to the total amount of claims checked, not necessarily between candidates. #4 is claiming that the large number of falsehoods in his claims is merely a matter of the base rate fallacy, in these terms - if nobody can substantiate that the base rate fallacy is indeed the reason why so many of his statements have been deemed false, oppose #4 as a misrepresentation. #5 seems like it may run afoul of WP:UNDUE unless that percentage - and only that percentage - is discussed by many other sources. About #6, I don't think the comments on the veracity of his statements fall under the scope of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at all. And if memory serves, when people talk about Trump's statements being often incorrect they are talking about the statements being incorrect, not just about people calling them incorrect. So unless that memory is incorrect, oppose #6 as well as a misrepresentation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #6. Not #1. Option Zero per JFG. Historical note: Trump purposely made many statements that were false, outlandish, and offensive so as to divert Clinton into focusing her campaign message on his temperament rather than on economic change, causing her to lose the Rust Belt. Michael Scherer, "Donald Trump: The Person of the Year", Time, December 19, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option #1 because it's true and not any less neutral than the other options. However, I would accept option #2 as well because "controversial" can encompass the falsehood of many of his statements in his campaign. κατάσταση 04:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Though option 6 would also handle the statement being too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact -- which does not fit with WP:V where support is Op-Ed viewpoint expressions. Actually my impression was that Hillary was the one more characterized as 'deceptive' and that Trump was more 'controversial or offensive' (and sometimes just called nuts). Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 and don't really think this RfC is warranted since we already had one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is certainly well-sourced and the mainstream media agrees fully, which is how Wikipedia works. Plus, it highlights for the reader and draws Attention with a capital 'A' to the in general political sensibilities of Wikipedia editors, their consensus and their completely understandable animosity towards pretty much everything Trump says. Although we cannot explicitly alert the reader to the nature of Wikipedia consensus and how it is reflected in political articles, indirect indications such as this will suffice as an alternative and serve a useful purpose. Marteau (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1, largely per EvergreenFir. Option 3 is not terrible, but it's wordy and amounts to putting the source into the sentence, which shouldn't be necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• not option 4 Due to the heated nature of this talk page, I am now limiting comments only to the first 1-2 sentences of the lede except I am making a small exception. Option 4 raises issues that appear to be opinion. That is not to say that other options contain opinion but attention was given to other non-celebrity candidates. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - It's is not our role to call out things as "false" or "true", it's not even for us to say that things are "controversial". These are opinions, and carry that kind of weight when we use those phrases. We can point out that people disagree with Donald Trump or have made claims to the contrary of what he has said, but any phrasing such as the words I put in quotes denotes a kind of opinion, a choosing of sides as to who is right and who is wrong. Even Hitler's Wikipedia page introduction does not use the word "controversial" to describe him, it relies on facts of what was done and by whom and to whom. Simply say that people disagree with Donald Trump and have opposed him, and have done with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option Zero – Remove the sentence entirely. Given the walls of text consumed in this new debate as well as in prior ones, this sentence looks irremediably flawed. The article text in the campaign section accurately explains his way of speaking, the exaggerations and untruths, the findings from fact-checkers and the impact of this unprecedented approach on Trump's coverage, with the New York Times going so far as admitting to drop "normal" journalism ethics because Trump's campaign was "not normal". I have not seen a proposal yet which would accurately reflect this part of the article contents in the lead section, as we should. Instead, we've got this blanket characterization that "many statements were false" backed by 5 different citations (as if we have to prove it to readers) and no space for a finer analysis. Yes, Trump says weird things, which contributed to his popularity and his eventual election, but also to the backlash against him. No, his words should not be taken literally, and Wikipedia should not fuel the fire of controversy. — JFG ^talk 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1/4: Preferably without "controversial", as that is a separate issue which is harder to quantify objectively - i.e., something like "He frequently made false statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate." zzz (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 is my preference, Option 3 is also fine. I don't much care for #1 (because it generates too much argument) or #6 (we don't have to soften "controversial" by saying "characterized as", everybody agrees his statements were and are controversial), and I oppose #2 (because it omits "false") and #5 (inappropriate for the lede). --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4B - This wording contrasts Trump with other politicians in the past and explains why his "False" statements are important. By leaving "Opinion 1", it creates an illusion that Trump is the only candidate who had said controversial and/or false statements. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 as the term "false" as it used is POV. The fact that we even have this discussion points out that "false" is not unequivocal. It is by definition, therefore, a non-neutral POV. That cannot be erased by how passionately people hold that view so it needs to be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 as it is concise and accurately states what fact checkers and major RS have said. Strong Oppose to Option 2 as it is misleading and post-factual.Daaxix (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4. Option 1; WP:DUE. Option 5 is inappropriate, Option 6; same reason as Option 1. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #2 or just remove that line totally. Something like this would never get into obama's page that he lied about obamacare. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/) KMilos (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:OTHERSTUFF. !Votes which are not based on policy but merely personal preferences are appropriately discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a relevant example of Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS that Obama's "Lie of the Year" award would never be mentioned in his BLP. Why not hold all BLPs to the same standard?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 or 6. Saying that a lot of his statements were controversial already strongly implies that the statements were considered by many people to include false material. But if we keep "false" in the lead, it should not be in wikivoice (even better than that would be to replace the controversial word "false" with a specific example or two of his most egregious falsities). If "false" is included in wikivoice then we need to properly reflect reliable sources (per option "3") that "many" is relative to other candidates (especially Clinton).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• 1, supported by reliable sources, no need to sugar-coat it. 201.27.125.81 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The preponderance of sources have not backtracked on their original reporting and fact checking in which they concluded that Trump has made many false statements. In the original RfC, fully 33 editors supported the current wording, and their arguments were seen to have more weight than the 21 who opposed it, by a large margin. The only thing that has changed since September is that Trump is now the President-elect. That fact does not change anything about how we should describe the conclusions reached by numerous reputable sources. Sources continue to amplify the fact that Trump "has little regard for the facts" [1]; that he continues to make false statements [2][3][4]; and in opinions expressed in reputable publications, that he outright lies.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Our responsibility to our readership is to present unvarnished, verifiable facts without sweetening their meaning with euphemisms (option 2), and word salads and equivocation (options 3, 4, and 6). It's ironic that our definition of reliable sources is based on reputation for fact checking and accuracy, yet while no one has challenged the reliability of these many available sources, they still express doubt that the sources actually checked facts. Astonishing.- MrX 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is a declamatory statement of mainstream-documented fact. False is a factual statement, not a moral judgment. It's not clear why we are revisiting this, and I hope we don't make a habit of it. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 3, both are well referenced and well documented and matter of fact and satisfy WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - existing wording is concise and accurate. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 If people are uncomfortable with the word 'false," they should take issue with the source of the statements, not dissemble reality to suit their comfort levels. RL have been overwhelmingly clear in documenting the atomic basis of Trump's many lies. This wording wouldn't even be controversial hadn't he become a politician and improbably enough, the presumed president elect. (I'm user AgentOrangeTabby, but can't reset my PW right now). 71.91.30.188 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 or remove entirely. Unnecessary non-neutral commentary, exists only to poison the well. -70.162.247.233 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• None; my thoughts mirror JFG's almost to the word. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Concise, supported by reliable sources, and gives WP:DUE weight reflecting the relative importance of this topic. Option 2 and 6 are acceptable, but I still favor Option 1. Options 3-5 are too lengthy for the lead. If we cannot reach consensus, then I would also be fine with removing the sentence entirely. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 There is no question about this. There has already been plenty of discussion about this and the previous RFC. Cited from multiple RS, obvious, factual. Do I really need to go into detail here? It's the truth and we don't need to whitewash it. Centerone (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is a POV violation that, even if it may be true, could go in the header of any politician's article, such as other 2016 US election candidates, yet Trump's is the only one that has it. --Baladoxox (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 (See comments below): It should not be in the lead while not covered in the body of the article, or at least linked to, and None of the above is not an actual option. Because of fact that, "Trump made controversial statements that have been attributed to falsehoods.", it should be covered in this article, just not using the word "Many". Apparently #1 is the consensus choice but only until another RFC that will eventually come to pass. Using this sentence in the WP:Lead section ("Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), is controversial. What are we using as justification that it is a "basic fact" for inclusion in the lead only? There are a multitude of reasonings (policies and guidelines) against using the apparent editorial consensus wording "Many/many", and WP:Bias is only one. Even "IF" there are 560 (I consider this "MANY") false statements (from a source), using "Many" would beg someone to count (certainly tag the word) how many statements he made overall, to quantify "Many". There is reason to question five references (this is a WP:BLP) as being "many", because even fifty references, (out of how many references concerning statements he made?) is considered subjective. Why do we need it in the lead at all? Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Option 1 is the only neutral-point-of-view option. The other options are all clear non-neutral point-of-view pushing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1A is the best option in that it is NPOV, supported by sources, and appropriate given the remarkable underlying events. Oppose option 2 as blurring the lines between this and other situations, which the sources make clear is not appropriate. Oppose option 3 as kinda creating a weasel-wordish, primary-research-ish count comparison; also "fact-checking services" rings strange as a subtype of sources, appearing in the encyclopedic voice. Strongly oppose options 4a and 4b as conflating a couple of different parts of the narrative of the election with this issue; also, not sure it is a consensus in the sources. Oppose option 5 as undue weight on a single source and the oddly specific statistic from the source. Strongly oppose late addition Option 1B as strange and unclear -- it sounds like the encyclopedic voice may be accusing the sources of bias for not having done so, which I think is the opposite of the author's intention; also, original-research-ish. Option 6 is least objectionable, but significantly inferior to option 1A since the relevant fact is that, unlike other candidates who are accused by others of saying false and false-ish things, this candidate has said multiple things that were flatly false. (Summoned by bot.) Chris vLS (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 / 1a (no opinion on the sourcing-difference between them). If I had to compromise on an alternative, then #3 and #6 are viable. First, we set aside discussion of Trump's particular statements or why they have received attention. The focus here, which probably everyone accepts as uncontroversial, is that there has been an extremely unusual and extremely noteworthy number of Reliable Sources saying Trump has made an unusual number of false statements. This is relevant encyclopedic NPOV information. That pretty well rules out #2 as treading close to a policy violation. Oppose #5, it singles out a single source to present a percentage that is misleading to the point of silly. Oppose #4, the sentences are awkwardly written and I doubt a cleaned up version should be packed into the lede. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 — The others are inaccurate or biased. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 - RS are crystal clear on this. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 0 - It's a subtle POV by relative weight, even if it's true, but one which seems more relevant and neutral than it otherwise would be because it is so recent. In comparison, we currently summarize the seven paragraph section covering a six year period from 09-15 in a single sentence: He considered running as a Republican for the 2012 election, but ultimately decided against it. But for some reason we think that five sentences regarding what he said on the campaign deserve similar weight, which it doesn't. Currently the lead on this article (in this regard) is more strongly worded than even the lead on the main campaign article, which simply says, Some of his remarks were controversial, but in comparison has lengthy extensive coverage of what those remarks actually were, to the tune of an order of magnitude more coverage than this article. Remove it entirely, and interested readers can be directed to the main article on the campaign. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• 'Option 1 Clearly and verifiably false statements can be called that if the sources saying so are reliable. ValarianB (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 6 I'm fine with anything with due attribution. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option Zero: not needed in the lead. If there must be sentence in the lead, there is no sugarcoating it: Trump lied, it is well-documented, and honestly some examples are so egregious that we don't even need sources for attribution (though we need sources to decide it is due weight to include). So option 1. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mandruss:} Umm ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should not take material out of context from the sources

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

This is a good point, and indeed, the whole reason MelanieN re-started the discussion about the 'many...controversial and false' sentence was *because* of these types of concerns. And yes, as mentioned during the subsequent discussions, fact-checkers do suffer from selection bias. So the original suggestion was to say something like "many controversial statments [per everyone thus no qualifier in wikivoice], and also relatively many [compared to other candidates in 2016 and also historically] false statements according to fact-checkers." Which is an improvement, because it lets readers know WHO said 'many false [statements were made by Trump]' and also lets readers know that this was a relative-to-other-potus-candidates metric as opposed to an absolute percentage of all Trump's statements for instance. So the question is, how to rephrase the language in the lead-paragraphs, to properly reflect what the sources actually say? Not that easy to do! 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there's no consensus about how to include context that the sources say is necessary, then "false" should be removed from the lead. The word "controversial" already implies that many of his statements were widely considered false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We'll have to see how the RfC closer adjudicates the issue (if anybody has the courage to do it at all). In my opinion, any finding of "no consensus" should result in the removal of the entire sentence from the lead. Trump's "controversial or false" statements are properly analyzed in the campaign section and editors have not been able to agree on a reasonable summary of this analysis in the lead section, despite months of discussion. This fact alone proves that inclusion of this sentence is in itself too controversial for the lead. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Close early?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further comments moved to new subsection below, see #Keep open? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I also floated this as an alternative in a previous RfC (see further up this talkpage), before remembering the old-school WP:OUTBOX approach. I support the double-infobox approach (and do not care specifically which section they are added unto), if the combo-approach using WP:OUTBOX or the magic of template-invocations (still working on that variation) fails to achieve consensus. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary clutter. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support For the majority of his life he has been a businessman, and it is deceptive and unencyclopedic to hide this. Furthermore despite not being a political/elected office other businessmen such as Mark Fields (businessman) use this as there office is notable and significant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep open?

moved here, from the WP:NOTVOTE area above, per WP:KEEPTHINGSTIDY policy 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely leave it open. Some of the oppose-voters are complaining about clutter, aka worried about what content to put in the proposed OUTBOX, which is a different discussion than the question of whether to use an OUTBOX. I suspect that such content-related questions (e.g. whether to mention known-for-trump-tower and if so whether to colorize the background so people don't confuse it with a politics-related-monument) can be dealt with, after the decision on whether or not to alter the technological infrastructure is decided. And I'm still trying to figure out whether there is a cleaner less-cluttered way to have the wiki-markup of the outbox itself, using template-invoke commands or using the WikiProject:Battleships combo-syntax, which may further improve the number of support-notvotes. Not a nose-count here, of course. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

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

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

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

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

What to include/exclude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - this is his Bio article, so seems the wrong place to mention this topic. Certainly not sufficient importance in his life or sufficient association to suit WP:LEAD level appearance. There's apparently an article specific to it and that article might be reasonably mentioned in the article about the election. Although it appears after the election is over, so perhaps in the election articles See Also section. Markbassett (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support — Relevant and necessary to paint a full picture. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support—Following WP:NPOV is more important then keeping controversies out of the lead. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm 100% for including it later in the article, but 100% against including it in the lead. See this NYT article: "Why Trump Won: Working-Class Whites". Admittedly, Putin and Assange are white, but the NYT does not suggest they affected the election outcome. Likewise, see this BBC article: "US Election 2016 Results: Five reasons Donald Trump won". Again, no mention of Russia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Anythingyouwant: Those articles were written about a month before the Russian interference even got a Wikipedia article. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  Prior to the general election in November 2016, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other American intelligence agencies publicly blamed Russia for cyberespionage that was intended to affect the presidential election, and U.S. officials decided that any countermeasures against Russia would come after election day instead of before. I'm not aware that reliable sources since then have attributed Trump's election win to Russia. But there are several factors that reliable sources say did swing the election, and they would be more appropriate for the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Oppose in lede Wait until all the evidence is assembled and/or adjudicated. At such time, it will be clear from RS whether we can state this in WP's voice as part of his biography. Not suitable for lede at this time. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) No opinion. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: I disagree—we don't need evidence, only sufficient coverage in reliable sources, which we already have. —MartinZ02 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

OK I am changing from oppose to neutral for now. I see your point. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Election summary in the lede

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

1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

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

Survey: Election summary in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. If #2 then change "a plurality of the nationwide vote" to "more votes nationwide". Plurality probably isn't a well known term. If #3 then change "garnered fewer ballots" to "received fewer votes". Garnering ballots is unnecessary linguistic flourish. Aside from those tweaks, the three versions are similar and similarly acceptable. Alsee (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - status quo option preferred. These all seem pretty close, so not really seeing much of a choice or mention of whats up -- it just seems to presume it's down to A/B ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 as most NPOV and best written — Iadmc♫^talk  18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all The phrasing in the current lead is perfect. These other options are either too verbose about Clinton's popular vote win or have very confusing wording. "Neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote"? This doesn't make sense - this could only happen if they received an identical number of votes. I understand some people don't understand how the Electoral College works, but we don't have to explain it in uber detail for that very small minority.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Neither candidate received a majority" makes perfect sense. Neither candidate got a "majority", i.e. over 50% of the votes, because there were third-party candidates in the race who also got a share of the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all options, current text is better. I also disagree with the "surprise" bit for reasons already stated by other users in the discussion below.Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 This is the most concise and gives the reader the most important information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2 or Oppose First off, it wasn't surprising. Remember, the US is divided into TIME ZONES. All the swing states are in the Eastern Time Zone (UTC-5), so they finish voting first. Byt the time all the in-queue voters have finished, it is 7pm Central, and all those polls are closing. So by 9CDT, everyone knew that Trump would win, as the West coast going to Ms. Hillary was a given, and Mountain Time doesn't have the population to make up the divide in the Electoral College. Second, #2 is the best because 1 and 3's assertion "Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote" is patently absurd. Hillary won the popular by a few million. Everybody I know knew it would be close in the popular vote. It is the first 2 sentences that are off to me, and that is why i cast #2 or Oppose. L3X1 Complaints Desk 13:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  @L3X1: That's not patently absurd, it's patently true. Neither candidate took 50% of the popular vote plus 1, which is the definition of "majority". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Mandruss Whoops! I was thinking "majority" along the lines of, "having more than the other fellow." Still an awkward wording. L3X1 Complaints Desk 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Election summary in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final (?) tweaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My ce suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I don't like 'plurality' but it's in the RS. - We have to conform to sources as to facts, not vocabulary. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Children in Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Barron's name be linked?

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Because people tend to expect articles on specific subjects when clicking links, not just sections within a general page. He would actually have his own page if he had any notability at all (which isn't the case here). Besides, it's not like that page introduces any new meaningful information that isn't already included here or at Melania's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment

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

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

Lead image

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg

Small head

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

Big head

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "airport" photo

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg This photo was released by the inaugural committee as the official photo of the president which will appear in airports and government offices. I suggest that we use it in the infoBox, as it's the official photo [redacted]. As prior consensus is required, I now officially request it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support using this photo until the official portrait is posted on or after Inauguration Day. No benefit comes from using a year and a half old image. Calibrador (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated elsewhere in this scattered mess. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: in a quick Google search I could find no support for the claim that this picture is going to be used in "airports"[23] and "government offices".[24] A quick Google search for "Trump photo"[25] or "Trump official photo"[26] does not turn up the image being discussed here (except for Wikipedia). This is just for information, I have no opinion on which photo to use. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it's recolored --Distelfinck (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination

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

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

• Update: Public-domain validity of both retouched pictures was validated at Commons. — JFG ^talk 20:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Article size

Document statistics for this Donald Trump BLP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't notice some of them. But, what do you think about splitting "Early life". —MartinZ02 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration attendance down, massively unpopular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Markbassett: I agree there's not much scope for the stuff about the inauguration attendance, but I absolutely disagree with your (frankly bizarre) notion that his popularity is off topic. In fact, I am confident it will end up in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So liberals block the access to inauguration and then talk about the low attendance? First of all, the picture presented in Vox (far-left dubious "source") is wrong with wrong time, second, the official attendance numbers are not yet in, with indications that this was the most attended inauguration in history. The source is White House press conference that happened minutes ago. Go check it. --Novis-M (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The vox picture was taken at 11:04, the Obama picture was taken at 11:30. CNN has released a gigapixel photograph of the inauguration during the President's speech, the crowd is very full. I think this point is moot until we get official numbers, which we won't get, because the Park Police don't release numbers, so let's just move on. Fbifriday (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN showed a similar crowd for Trump's inauguration as it did for Obama's but since they're "fake news" we know that it is misleading at least. Right? --TMCk (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all US media outlets (and many foreign media outlets) has shown like-for-like pictures of the 2017 and 2009 inaugurations that prove Trump's crowd was significantly smaller than Obama's. When White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer read his statement yesterday, the pictures he himself put up showed the Obama crowd was much larger. After the presser, most US media outlets called out Spicer for what turned out to be a string of falsehoods, including about the crowd numbers. It's all anyone is talking about today. So no, this is not "fake news" that is going away. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I was being sarcastic.--TMCk (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I think it's notable that inauguration attendance was low, and apparently dwarfed by yesterday's events, I'm not sure it should be included in this biography. Certainly it has a place in the inauguration article and probably the Presidency of Donald Trump article. After yesterday's Orwellian white house press conference, I'm starting to think that another spinoff article is needed. Something like False statements made by Donald Trump and his administration. The title is a bit cumbersome though, and no, I'm not kidding.- MrX 15:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that Wikipedians get tired of reporting every little bit of "news" linked to The Donald three times a day and uttering walls of text for every tweet. I guess that's what we face for electing the first celebrity president… — JFG ^talk 18:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't. I hope we keep him and his alternative facts under an electron microscope for the next four years, unless of course he ceases to hold the office of President before then.- MrX 19:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Blatantly false statements made on the first day of his presidency, by his press secretary [27] is not "news" in quotation marks, it's just plain ol' news. Particularly since it's pretty unpresidented. Neither is it just a "tweet". But I do agree that most of it belongs in the Inauguration or a separate article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Particularly since it's pretty unpresidented." Pun intended? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time before that became a verb. I think we're about to be presidented. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Minor everyday news, presidented or not, belong on Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. The Sean Spicer outburst is already well-documented there. I think we all wish to have some peace and quiet at this article some day… — JFG ^talk 23:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not minor. Everyday maybe but hey, that's what we're gonna get here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And I can't believe somebody actually created an article called "Alternative facts"! Facepalm I mean, what happened to good old propaganda and disinformation? Must it all be fake news these days? We truly do live in Orwellian times, where newspeak reigns supreme… — JFG ^talk 23:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, but not in the way you think.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy you know the way I think; perhaps I should stop thinking at all… — JFG ^talk 00:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Two one-syllable words are easily managed by the target audience. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand the record low approval rating most certainly belongs here too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The low inauguration attendance makes sense in an inauguration article. I don’t think so here. OTOH, I think the remarkably low approval rate on assuming office does merit inclusion. The dislike of both candidates was a major characteristic of this campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

‪I agree with those who say that this information belongs in the Inauguration article and possibly in the Presidency and Transition articles - but not in this biography. I don't suppose either article can use this item (coverage too little and too brief): when Trump took over the presidential Twitter account, the featured images on it were his official portrait and a photograph of a huge flag-waving crowd at an inauguration. Oops: the photo was of Obama's inauguration. It was quickly replaced.[28] --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)‬

Official portrait

Original

Cropped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening sentence

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

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

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

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

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

• Support-The article should, as Reagan's does, at least identify him as a "politician" before describing him as a television personality or businessman. The presidency is by far the biggest, most important, and most visible job that he has ever held or will hold. Display name 99 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The existing text is the result of extensive previous discussion and reflects the unique nature of the subject's life and career.- MrX 18:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The previous, extensive discussion is here: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 43#Lede/& Election section Each word was debated and the current formulation was the result. No changes should be made to the current formulation without having at least as extensive a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has already been discussed at length and is the result of consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - unnecessary precedent, and seems unsuitable for this case, or at least not enugh to be a motivating thing. While I think it's not a bad opening, I think calling it 'precedent' is not a valid or sufficient grounds to drive for change. First, I think that's unnecessary conformance here and trying to make all pages look the same is not a valid or desirable thing. There was no discussion before this about of 'should every page start like X', and the text in question - while decent - varies on other presidents and was just sort of ad hoc with nothing special to favor it by itself over other phrasings. One turns to precedent to get an idea when there is a change called for by other reasons or question of style, not as the reason for change. Second, I'll point out that such a norm would lead to the process of making an edit becoming a harder template discussion and a whole new round of discussion about Trump article particularly, and just feel we don't need additional incitements in this article or at least this isn't enough to mess with the WP:STATUSQUO. Finally, I think variation should be allowed for by WP:IAR, WP:OSE and WP:SSEFAR -- when the individual case has a difference, then the article text should have a difference. In the Trump BLP article, 'Politician' is a really recent addition, unlike others to whom it was the bulk of their adult lives. It seems it will be WP:WEIGHT prominent enough in press foreverafter to be in the first line but ... even after they may well say 'billionaire' first then 'and President'. I think in WP portrayal of his life businessman will always come first in WP:WEIGHT of mentions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove the "political positions" section?

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

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

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

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

P.S. Responding to JFG's point above: we should probably delay a week or two even if we decide to do this. It is quite likely that a lot of readers will be flocking to this article wanting to know more about this man who has just become President of the United States, and his political positions may be important to summarize here until his presidential priorities and positions become more clear. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Qualified support - The section should be dramatically shortened to a one paragraph summary of Political positions of Donald Trump (which needs attention, quite honestly). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support dramatic trim - I don't think the proper inclusion criterion is "what are readers interested in?". Saving them one click of an easily-seen wikilink is less important than sticking to biographical content, not to mention keeping the article at a manageable size. This said, I'm not the guy to do the trimming; I'm only here to create work for others. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Please do - support dramatic trim - this is supposed to be a Biography page, major life events and significant items that affect him. So other things are a bit not-about-his-life WP:OFFTOPIC. And when there is another article, then I suggest deleting such material or possibly replace by a short mention of the other article or a see also or category link. To duplicate content significantly seems like a WP:CONTENTFORK. (Also, I don't think the policies are even known in any detail as yet, let alone that they come from or form a consistent ideology, so a lot of that seems about speculation at this time.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Incumbent" in infobox

Please remove "Incumbent" from underneath Trump's picture. He is not an incumbent (being RE-elected), but rather he's new to the office. Thanks. Grattan33 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC) grattan33

Obama's article showed that word during his first term, and that seems consistent with the dictionary definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Incumbent is defined by dictionary.com as "the holder of an office." Trump holds the office of President of the United States. Therefore, he is the incumbent. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple websites and Twitter accounts in the infobox

I don't think we should have multiple websites and Twitter accounts in the infobox. It should be sufficient to list the Whitehouse website and the POTUS Twitter account. In fact, the recent RfC was clear that one additional social media accounts should be added. JFG has added these twice today, the second time over my objection.- MrX 00:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MrX, sorry for undoing your edit; this needs to be discussed indeed. Let me explain why: about an hour after the inauguration, I found that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed had been boldly replaced by the @POTUS feed, and I don't think this change of account was anticipated in the consensus discussion to include Trump's feed. So, in order to give room for discussion, instead of just reverting the change, I made both links visible. About the White House vs Presidential transition links: I didn't touch them earlier and I don't know who added a second site; I just reverted your deletion of the transition site, again because I think this requires discussion and there is no need to rush to judgment. — JFG ^talk 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When I added the whitehouse.gov site earlier, I left a comment on a talk topic that I was leaving the transition website because whitehouse.gov is pretty much empty right now, having just been reset from the Obama admin. All of the information about cabinet nominees, plans, confirmation hearings, etc, is on the transition website. Until the white house site is populated with more information, it is not a bad idea to keep the transition website up for those seeking info on the transition. As for twitter, I agree, his only official twitter now is POTUS, should be the only twitter up. Fbifriday (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My concern is about infobox bloat, and confusing readers. I think it's fine to keep the transition website for a little while, but only in the External links section. Since the transition is essentially over, I wouldn't expect it to be very useful to our readers. We added Twitter as an exception to WP:ELNO#Social because of President Trump's ongoing heavy use of it. I think including two Twitter feeds is excessive, and goes against the spirit of the consensus reached in the previous RfC.- MrX 01:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with leaving the transition website in external links but not in info box. And like I said, I agree with not having two twitters, just POTUS. It's his official twitter now, while he may use his personal account, the ones that comes from POTUS are the official tweets. Fbifriday (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is but one of reasons I don't think there should be any Twitter links in any infoboxes anywhere in WP. If a Tweet makes sense for WP to mention, use an RS referring to it. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In all reality, Trump's use of Twitter may be relevant right now, but this is an encyclopedia, and while we often change information to reflect current information, his twitter shouldn't be important to this article in the long term, except perhaps in his external links section. Fbifriday (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also agree that there should be only one web site and one Twitter feed in the infobox. The problem is that the switch to POTUS role is too fresh to shut down the prior incarnations of Trump's web presences. Therefore I would suggest to give it a week or two with the links staying there, and then make the change depending how those feeds are being used. — JFG ^talk 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Info box could use a better photograph of Donald Trump

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

---

The info box photograph of Donald Trump leaves much to be desired. He has a gloomy, doomsday look on his face. This photo should be replaced with a new photo of a happy, smiling, President. Anthony22 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's his official White House portrait. While I agree, I wish he'd smiled, it's his official portrait. Fbifriday (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm interesting conversation and word choice. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Whom did you have in mind.:) Objective3000 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

His facial expression in that picture is deliberate. If he had wanted a smiling portrait, he would have smiled. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I like it, I don't think it has a doomsday aspect but a serious, Clint Eastwood-like stare that means business. Stands out from all the doofus smiles (ie George Bush Sr) 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't go down this road. Trust me, you don't want. We've been there, and done that. The current photograph is consensus, let's just leave it at that. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

We just yesterday installed the photo resulting from a 30-day RfC ending last month, which we thought would finally end a many-months-long battle over the choice of infobox photo. I think the majority will agree that we should give the infobox photo a rest for awhile. We invested a ton of editor time in the current consensus, far more than many thought we should have invested, and it's not unreasonable to expect some return on that investment.
The endless parade of attempts to re-open the issue, completely lacking in perspective on the history of the issue, is beginning to make me think we need a consensus for a formal moratorium of specified length, say 6 months, just so we can get something else accomplished. Then such attempts could be shut down immediately with a pointer to the consensuses list. Who knows, maybe a few editors would read the list first, saving us even that small effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why the infobox photograph is the official portrait of President Trump. The photo is very unflattering and conveys the impression of an unhappy person. I must admit, however, that the picture does give the appearance of someone who means business. Contrast Trump's official portrait with the portraits of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Obama and Bush are smiling and appear to be happy politicians. This projects a first-class positive image. Smile and the world smiles with you; frown and you frown alone. Anthony22 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've taken the liberty of indenting this conversation. As to the photo, this is how Trump looks. See the very first Time mag cover. They even commented that no matter how many times they took the photo, that was the face he showed. That's his expression. It seems to be working for him since it's his official presidential photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Your changes to indentation presume that every comment was a reply to the one preceding it. I can't speak for others, but my comment was a reply to the opener, hence one level of indent, per WP:THREAD. I have corrected my indent. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I support Mandruss' suggestion of a 6-month moratorium (I wouldn't mind making it for the duration of his presidency) on any discussion of the infobox image. It can change only if the White House comes out with a different portrait and then we should use it. We always use the official portrait, and in this case we have affirmed that through agonizingly long discussion. BTW I think the consensus refers to the actual official portrait, not a cropped or otherwise modified version. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Turn it into a proper survey and we can all weigh in, show the consensus, close it. etc. and then we'll have something to refer back to when the inevitable drive-by editor shows up. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the moratorium and official-photo-only are separate questions that could be kept separate. In particular, I think the latter would need an RfC, whereas the moratorium wouldn't. Just for the sake of some temporary relief from the onslaught, and because it would be easier to pass, I would suggest a survey on a 6-month moratorium with the statement that it may be extended at the end of that time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that Mandruss has now proposed such a moratorium; see "Moratorium on infobox image" below. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Categories

Should this article be added to Category:New York Democrats, Category:New York Independents, and Category:Reform Party of the United States of America politicians? He was formerly affiliated with all the described parties. MB298 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, simply because his current party is Republican, and it could be confusing to put him in those categories. Is there a "former new york democracts" category? Fbifriday (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is already bloated with categories, several of which are questionable at best. I agree with Fbriday. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally I trimmed a bunch of dubious or redundant categories today. — JFG ^talk 20:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Slight grammatical error in lead sentence

"is an American businessman, television personality, politician, who currently serves as the 45th President of the United States" - Should read "television personality, and politician who currently serves as the 45th..." Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Qualified support - Assuming "American businessman" is retained, such that the sentence reads:

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

Although personally, I still don't see why it is necessary for "politician" to be there at all, considering Presidents are politicians, by definition. Greggydude (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence has been restored to the consensus version - see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, item 11 - thereby eliminating the grammatical error. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Mandruss, you took the words right out of my mouth. About some of the wording mentioned here: The usage "serving as" or "who currently serves as" was discussed and rejected. Concerns included verbosity as well as a hint of POV, as if we are trying to avoid saying (just can't bring ourselves to say) that he IS the president. As for "politician," it is included in the first sentence for virtually every president. The lede sentence is supposed to define the person, not just their current office. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Most other presidents ran for offices besides president at some point. Since running for president is the only act Trump has undertaken to qualify as politician, it is redundant and unnecessary to specify he is a politician. Talmage (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Barron Trump

Isn't it disallowed per Wikipedia rules to not mention names of non-notable children in infobox per Wikipedia rules? If yes, then why is Barron's name included? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above! MB298 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already seen it. But shouldn't Wikipedia's rules be above everything else? Rfcs etc are for dispute solving and consensus, but they cannot override the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First, no Wikipedia rules are absolute. Second, consensus decides how the rules apply to a specific case. Consensus is the king of Wikipedia rules. The clear consensus is that he should be listed. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing that "consensus is absolute". It is a way of solving disputes, not a way of violating the rules and making your own. Wikipedia rules are flexible, but that doesn't mean you can make up or discard them whenever you want. It is highly inappropriate behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS trumps all else. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't state that anywhere on its policy page. Especially any rule made by Wikipedia Foundation are outside the purview of the consensus. It states so on the very policy page. It is there to solve disputes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet, if you go against consensus here, you will be in violation of the discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBAPDS which can result in you being blocked from editing. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When did I say I was going against it? Even though I might be right, it might set off an edit war if I edited it and that is bad. I am only discussing here, nothing else. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:IAR also applies here. MB298 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Only if it prevents from improving Wikipedia which is not the case here, especially a child. But it doesn't allow willful changing and manufacturing of rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In what way does the inclusion/mention of his sons ability to speak Slovene improve the page?It does not.And if that doesnt change your mind it can be pointed out as being a biased edit to potray his family and in turn himself as intelligent, impressive person or as a hypocrite which the article its tied to claims.Either this fact should be edited to address the situation it came from or its then considered trivial and find an admin crazy enough as a biased edit and should be removed.The other mentions are relevant.The info box mention should stay WP:INVALIDBIO and he has had news about him before the election and continues to get it as a 10y/o it is often accompanied by the mention of his father or mother as most articles about preteens are expected to be.Junkoo (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect from Trump

There is a discussion at Talk:Trump on whether that page should redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olidog (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

As Yet Unproven

This [edit] removed the words "as yet" from the sentence about russia supposedly having damaging information on Trump. Same editor removed it last night, I reverted, he removed again. The comment he added was ridiculous as well, because the sheer definition of the phrase "as yet" is "up to the present time", which is entirely accurate description of the accusations. They have not been substantiated yet, they may or may not be, but either way, "As yet" is still the accurate way to describe the accusations. Coming here to gather consensus. "As yet" or not? Fbifriday (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

'As yet' may be a problem because it implies that the allegations may be proven, which is unknown. Do we even need to say 'unproven'? It seems to be implicit in the word 'allegations'.- MrX 15:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

At best, it's superfluous; at worst, the implied "but stay tuned, the FBI is hard at work!" seems an NPOV violation, albeit a minor one. On balance, I could live without those two words. MrX makes a good point as to "unproven". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "as yet" does not belong there, and in fact seems to hint that the allegations are likely to be proven any day now. I concur with removing it. For that matter I prefer "unverified" to "unproven". Investigators and journalists set out to "verify" information, not to "prove" it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It needs to be removed. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"As yet" conveys an anticipation that such allegations may be proven soon. Then it begs the question "why weren't they undeniably proven yet, since they surfaced several months ago?" so it opens yet another can of worms. Current wording "unproven allegations" is NPOV, even if it can be considered redundant. — JFG ^talk 16:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump unproven sexual misconduct allegations is redlinked. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. This title was debated back in the day and properly settled. The main point of contention was about "assault" vs "misconduct" iirc… The word "unproven" wouldn't have added any information, so would have been rejected per WP:CONCISE policy. It probably wasn't even suggested but I understand you are making a rhetorical argument here. Do you mean we should use this example to remove "unproven" from the sentence being discussed here? We can't assess prose by looking at the rules for titles. — JFG ^talk 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not citing a rule, I'm citing sound writing practice. Logical redundancy is logical redundancy, whether it occurs in an article title or in prose. Do you mean we should use this example to remove "unproven" from the sentence being discussed here? Yes, sorry if that was unclear. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"Logical redundancy is logical redundancy." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

Splitting proposal

I propose that we split out "Early life" in order to reduce article size. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This particular section is not very long, and it wouldn't have much expansion in a separate article; really only makes sense in the individual's main biography article. However, there is plenty of potential to shorten the sections on Legal affairs and Political positions, which both happen to have lenghty articles. The campaign section is also quite long. I've trimmed the real estate part a few weeks ago, and a few editors tackled the political positions; we should probably wait a few more weeks to see how those positions get applied in practice, then we can write a concise summary. I would really recommend trimming the Legal affairs section if you feel so inclined… Also, there is some redundancy about bankruptcies, first mentioned in the Casinos section, then in a dedicated section. — JFG ^talk 20:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to split out certain sections, "Early life" should not be one of them. An "early life" section belongs in every biography. I concur with JFG about removing almost all of the "Political positions" section (see discussion above, "Can we remove the "political positions" section?") - not immediately, but after a week or two, after the enormous surge of interest in this article (4.4 million page views yesterday) has died down a little. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: How to mention Donald's children in the infobox

Should the infobox be changed to containing only number of Donald's children in the infobox, with a "see below" link next to it and redirecting to the "Family/Personal life" section like it is done on the "featured article" of Ronald Reagan? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for opening the Rfc

I personally think it will be better that instead of including or not including all children even the non-notable or ones with little notability of their own, it is better to just have the number of children. The article after all is about Donald Trump, not who his children are.

Although WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, a guideline, says to try to avoid mentioning links in the infobox, it also says that "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." I think in these circumstances we can take an exception, instead of outright breaking it. A featured article used links in the article as an exception, so can we. And personally I think it gives the article and the infobox a more clean look. Are you okay with it if we did that? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey re Trump's children in infobox

• No per existing consensus following ample debate. The OP's argument is weakened by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whereas WP:CONSENSUS is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: To be honest, I was just citing a good example. It's not disallowed completely and I never said "you have to agree with it because it is used there". I'm making this comment so people don't misunderstand me. It is just a discussion and I gave a good example of a featured article's style which we can use if we want to. That is it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• No Reagan's article seems to be the exception, not the norm, as every other article on presidents lists the children, sometimes regardless of independent notability (see John Aspinwall Roosevelt in FDR's list for instance). While this does seem to simply be other stuff exists, there is a precedent here to include the children in the list regardless of notability. As well, you say that the article is about DT, not who is children are, but isn't who his children are part of who he is? Fbifriday (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment:Not really, we can say his number of children and their names. When you say who they are I presume you are talking about notability and their work. This article isn't about them. And mentioning their names in the infobox, it gets too unnecessarily long. Why elongate when we can make do with less? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Display of the children list has recently been radically shortened into a {{flatlist}}, so that they take one line and a half on most screens. Hardly too long. — JFG ^talk 21:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, when I say who they are, I mean simply who they are. I'm not proposing that they have their own articles if their not notable, but the fact that he has children, and what their names are, is worthy of inclusion in his infobox, because it's part of his biography. It's in EVERY SINGLE president's article, with the exception of Reagan. Precedent is to keep it how it is. It's not unnecessarily long, it's five words that could be shortened to no less than five (5, see family section below). This has been decided by consensus before, yet here we are arguing it again. Why elongate when we can do with the consensus we already have? Fbifriday (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• No. Copying my comment from the discussion above (sigh): WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a guideline, not a policy. We can cite it and choose to follow it, or we can decide it doesn't fit this situation. In this case there was extensive discussion (see above, "Current consensuses and RfCs", #10, for links to the discussions), and the consensus was to include all the children with a link, including a link to the "Barron" section of the family page. I personally don't see what is wrong with directing a reader to the information they are looking for, instead of making them search for it. I misunderstood this guideline; it was explained above that it only means we shouldn't include links to sections within the same article. Apparently, links to sections of other articles are OK. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• NO - WP:CONSENSUS was already formed about this, and is unlikely to change since that RfC above has still yet to be archived. The editor opening this has been made aware of WP:ARBAPDS and, I believe, appears to be gaming the system by indirectly trying to circumvent consensus with this RfC. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• No - Insufficient justification to deviate from guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The Reagan/FA argument is weak, given that even featured articles often usually have bad things in them; else we would never have featured articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I cannot believe we took this minor issue to RfC, but carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it really is a minor issue. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey people, it's ok if you do not agree with the proposal. But stop throwing bad faith allegations at me. I didn't even edit the article once. I only came here to talk. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: I see only one allegation of bad faith, which was of course entirely inappropriate. That's not "people". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It was just a general comment asking for people to calm down, not accusing everyone. I was not blaming anyone in personal. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you said, "stop throwing bad faith allegations at me", not "calm down". Anyway, I've been around this page for a number of months and I'd say things are pretty calm on this issue by comparison. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No what I actually said was, "Hey people, it's ok if you do not agree with the proposal. But stop throwing bad faith allegations at me. I didn't even edit the article once. I only came here to talk." It was a general expression, a phrase not an accusation on everybody or anybody in person. I never said EVERY SINGLE EDITOR is making bad faith allegations, nor did I ever take any names. You are needlessly misunderstanding the issue. In fact I don't think it is so uncommon to talk in this way that one doesn't understand it. Even if you did, you should have asked me first instead of understanding I am blaming the "people" and assume bad faith. You justify me asking people to calm down. This is a completely wasteful issue which is not what this talk page is for. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As I already said this article is about the subject. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Should Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations be mentioned in the lead?

What happened to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations in the lead? We clearly had consensus to include this in the lead; it was and is a major issue, with a lengthy in-depth article and extensive coverage in reliable sources. Seeing how today's protests against him focus on his attitude to women and the sexual misconduct allegations, this controversy has not become less noteworthy, rather the opposite. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where consensus was formed to keep in in the lead? Fbifriday (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Dig up that consensus and we'll throw it back in. Otherwise we might need a new discussion, however I find it very reasonable seeing as the number of accusers is quite high by now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

They do not belong in the lead since they are relatively minor compared with the topic, although they were an issue in the campaign. Note we don't have unproved allegations of sexual misconduct (or even proven ones) in the lead of Bill Clinton. TFD (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

They are major enough to have triggered a hundreds-thousand strong protest today in Washington DC. They're not minor, and if we have consensus they should be included, then they should be. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, they are protesting because they believe Trump threatens gender equality and other issues of interest to women. He may repeal the Affordable Care Act, make abortions more difficult to obtain, eliminate pay equity, keep a low minimum wage or even abolish it, stop the DOJ from prosecuting civil rights violations, etc. Note there were not similar protests against Bill Clinton, because women thought that he would be progressive on these issues. BTW the war in Iraq that George Bush and Hillary Clinton supported drew millions of demonstrators. TFD (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, "...note that there were not..."--please, this is not a forum. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No it is not a forum and your opinion that the women were protesting Trump because of the accusations against him is false. People do not protest allegations, they protest for ideological reasons. That's why Trump has women protesting against him and Clinton did not. TFD (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

For a month or more right before/during the election this was the most important issue debated here, and resulted in a stable, brief mention of the controversy in the lead. Then suddenly, after the debate had died, someone unilaterally removed it. Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 29, Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 30, Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 31, article history. --Tataral (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

They are allegations, and it would be completely inappropriate to mention them in the lede; Wikipedia is not a tabloid rag.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant; they are noteworthy due to the coverage of them in reliable sources (and they are extensively covered in Wikipedia too). Also, they're not really just allegations since he admitted to groping women in a recording that became public last year. The fact that he has been accused of misconduct by many women over many years, and the extent of the coverage of the controversy, makes it noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 10 days before an election--a complete coincidence I'm sure. And the tape was "locker-room talk", remember? Sorry but I think it would be extremely POV to mention these allegations in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This (the last part of the third paragraph) is what it looked like after the election. In my opinion, the two sentences could be condensed into just one sentence and the length reduced to half the length of that version. For example (note that this is just a starting point for discussion, and that I'm very much open for other ideas/improvements to the wording)

"Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women; he admitted to groping women in a 2005 recording, but denies the charge of misconduct."

--Tataral (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Tataral, the removal of content earlier agreed on, in such a high visibility article, is a big thing. We are not a tabloid rag but we are in uncharted waters...no, we're not, and it is nothing new that there is a disagreement on what the BLP allows or not, or what is and what isn't appropriate in the lead. I am interested in the diff where that was removed, and some more precise diffs that prove consensus to keep it in would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The version Tataral linked to said this in the lead: "On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women or being able to do so; multiple women accused him of similar conduct shortly thereafter. He apologized for the 2005 comments and denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider smear campaign."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm more interested in having a debate on the merits of including a single sentence on this now, based on its extensive coverage in reliable sources and the two Wikipedia articles that we already have devoted to this topic, than "finding the culprit" who removed it a few thousand edits ago and requiring everyone to read three lengthy archives of debate from last year. I think the original two sentences at this point would be too long and thus undue, but that one sentence would not. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever happens with this matter, I don't think Tataral's new language is very good. It leaves out that Trump apologized, and turns braggadocio into a confession.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

For a biography of a living person, "accusations" should be considered utterly meaningless unless there is a criminal charge or a civil lawsuit attached. Anyone can make accusations about anyone for political purposes, or as part of some other effort to destroy someone's reputation. For a highly controversial figure, and however distasteful, those potential motives are magnified, and for or a national leader, even more so. Simply presenting an "accuser's" claims without the other legal documentation is not only grossly irresponsible, it is potentially libelous. The fact that any woman with any shred of evidence of misconduct against a billionaire failed to pursue her claim legally is telling. Compare the situation with Bill Cosby, who will die before his cases have been settled. If, however, Trump himself made a claim of some sort of "assault," that might be noteworthy, but without any claim of misconduct on the part of the "victim," it's certainly not material for the lead. In my view, none of the myriad accusations against Bill Clinton, e.g., would be noteworthy unless a criminal charge, civil lawsuit, or congressional investigation was involved. Generally, we must please remain objective! Best wishes Learner001 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep it out of the lead. You don't want a precedent set to add unproven accusations to the lead paragraph of every article.JOJ ^Hutton 01:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"For a month or more right before/during the election this was the most important issue debated here, and resulted in a stable, brief mention of the controversy in the lead." Shows how off base we were. No doubt if "Crystal ball" edits were allowed we could have followed that by saying how it lead to Trump's landslide defeat. But the election is over and it is rare to even mention the presidential campaign in a lead beyond a brief mention. Note Barack Obama's lead: "In 2008, Obama was nominated for president, a year after his campaign began and after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. He became president-elect after defeating Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated on January 20." Nothing about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, the Birth Certificate, socialism, distributionism, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, his Muslim faith, taking guns away from people or any of the other "allegations" made against him by his opponents. TFD (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs in the lede. It is well covered in the text, that is enough. TFD, your list of supposed "allegations" against Obama is so POV as to be soapboxing. The only thing in your list that got enough mainstream coverage to be even considered worth mentioning was Reverend Wright. I'm sure there have been many weird conspiracy theories about Trump, too, but we are not proposing to include them. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, it is not soapboxing, all those issues were raised by Obama opponents and received widespread coverage at the time. The point is that U.S. presidential elections are characterized by unproved accusations about candidates. And partisan editors try to get undue emphasis on these accusations into articles. To me, this is just a repeat of 2008, except the parties are reversed. But it should not matter which candidate one happens to support, the policies should be applied the same. TFD (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic drift about Obama — JFG talk 22:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Um, you state "his Muslim faith" as if this was a fact, instead of a wild, crazy conspiracy theory and a BLP violation; let me be clear: there is also a difference between a serious allegation supported by some credible evidence, and a crazy conspiracy theory like the "Muslim faith" conspiracy theory. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC) It is typical of polemical writers to take wording out of context to discredit other writers instead of using reasoned arguments which btw is also typical of conspiracy theorists. I said it was an "allegation." Your distinction is between allegations you happen to believe and allegations you happen to disbelieve. TFD (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC) No, I don't accept this ludicrous attempt to normalize the "muslim faith" conspiracy theory by treating it as just as valid as the sexual misconduct allegations. The sexual misconduct allegations are supported by rational and credible evidence such as the testimony of numerous women, Trump's own, recorded admissions, and more importantly, numerous credible reliable sources reporting the allegations as serious and credible. The muslim faith allegation is a crazy and racist conspiracy theory not supported by any credible evidence, and it is treated as a crazy and racist conspiracy theory by all mainstream sources. That's the difference, which is a huge one. Also, you wrote that "Nothing about [...] his Muslim faith" had been included in the introduction; if you didn't intend to state "his Muslim faith" as a fact, your wording didn't make that very clear, and your continued insistence that it must be treated with equal seriousness as the sexual misconduct allegations doesn't help either. --Tataral (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC) You are again using a disingenuous polemical tactic of misrepresenting what I said. I am not trying to normalize the Muslim faith conspiracy theory, I am saying that your approach to this subject is just as bad as what Republicans did in 2008. Ironically smearing political opponents failed then and it failed in the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC) There is a massive difference — one is a conspiracy theory, the other is a set of allegations that have now made it into the legal system as formal charges. This is relevant, and is not in the leastest similar to the 2008 situation. We have a multitude of reliable sources covering this, and it is already clear that it should be included. Just because someone is a political figure does not mean that you can shout BLP whenever something unfavorable comes up.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I did not mention BLP. Under the U.S. legal system, anyone can launch a lawsuit and in fact there were lawsuits against Obama as well. Furthermore the claim that Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years was true. And your statement that this issue prompted the women's marches is false and a trivialization. TFD (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC) That's why I said Wright was the only comparable one. The Wright issue was factual, based on actual quotes from the people involved, and received enormous attention in the mainstream press. Everything else you mentioned - from Bill Ayers (which at least had some basis in fact but never became an issue outside the fringe) to the wildest conspiracy theories - has no place in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Include—what matters is its coverage in reliable sources, and this has been covered by enough reliable sources to merit inclusion. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include it. It's tremendously important and shouldn't be downplayed. Everyking (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – I agree with Tataral that going back thousands of revisions and reviewing walls of text uttered during the campaign season would be counter-productive, and dare I say irrelevant. If we're going to argue over including or excluding a phrase about those accusations in the lead section (and if yes which phrase!), this question must be posed in proper RfC format. Until then, I'll abstain. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Can this section be closed since there is no consensus for this change. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Taken out upon RFC discussions re UNDUE and LEDE

Tataral - to answer the initial question -- you're mistaken, the RFC consensus process ran against keeping this in the lead, it is in the template top for many Trump articles and in a lower subsection for this biographical article. It was discussed repeatedly, but in particular see Archive 31 and the Archive 35 entries. Th Sandstein note mentions reconsidering it again "after some time". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Trump transition

Should Template:Trump transition be moved to another preferred name? The "transition" is now outdated and another user as already changed the template to not be referred to as "Template:Trump transition"... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not really outdated. The transition is still a set of relevant topics. The template title should not be changed to Presidency of Donald Trump, since that's obviously a different set of topics.- MrX 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium on infobox image

PROPOSED:

A 6-month moratorium on the infobox image. The current infobox image, File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, will not be modified or replaced until at least 22 July 2017. If modifications to the image (e.g. cropping or touch-up) are desired for another page, it should be cloned to a new image for that purpose. At some point before that date, we may decide to extend the moratorium for another period of duration to be determined then.

During the moratorium period, new threads about the infobox photo should be collapsed immediately with a link to the consensuses list, preferably indicating the relevant item number, which will include a link to this consensus. If a thread receives replies before it can be collapsed, it should be collapsed anyway. Use {{Cot}} and {{Cob}}, not {{Atop}} and {{Abot}}.

• Support as proposer. Current photo is the product of an enormous amount of editor effort spanning many months, and should be left alone for at least six months, regardless of people's subjective opinions about it. We need return on the investment, and that return is some relief from continuous discussion of that image. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. We have spent far too much time on this issue and we finally have consensus. I don't think it's likely that consensus will change. Let's not spend any more time on it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Melanie, too much time spent on this. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I have watched this page for over a year. The amount of time and effort wasted in debating the image has been colossal. It's been almost as bad as the Kim Jong Un page. A consensus was formed to use the official portrait, and that's what we should do. My only question is: what happens if a new official portrait is released?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  Good question. I feel we should wait until the moratorium expires, spend a (relatively) short time deciding whether to use the new image, and then decide whether to start a new moratorium period. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) - I changed my mind; see following subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) STRONG support - Consensus on this issue was abundantly clear and way too many people here are trying to directly or indirectly circumvent that consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitbookspacetube, I don't think that's accurate. The reason it keeps coming up is not because people who didn't like the consensus are trying to circumvent it. Now that the official photo is out, the only people I see challenging it are newcomers to the article who are not familiar with the consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The infobox image is one of the least important, most discussed content items in this article. A break from those discussions would be therapeutic.- MrX 03:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I agree that too much electronic ink has been consumed in prior image debates, I also firmly believe in a Wikipedia culture of open discourse between editors, therefore I oppose any moratorium. Current policies, page protection level, edit notice and strong consensus to use the official portrait are enough to ensure minimal disruption. — JFG ^talk 06:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• I would have supported, but after reading JFG's argument I oppose. MB298 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But if the moratorium is imposed, I support breaking that only if a new official portrait comes out. MB298 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CCC policy. "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered circumstances." One such circumstance is the unexpectedly low face-height : image-height ratio, an important detail that we hadn't previously considered (perhaps because most of us aren't professional photographers). Compare the current image -- taken from the official PE Color.jpg (President-Elect Color.jpg?) portrait -- to the subject's less atypically proportioned POTUS profile image. To emphasize: A decision about a particular infobox image is customarily regarded as appropriate for its own RfC. Any preemptive "dead-hand" consensus decided on now would likely end up needlessly angering and driving away at least some of the hopeful contributors who would be arriving here during the proposed 6-month moratorium. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: As a compromise, if the moratorium is rejected, I would suggest a voluntary agreement where involved editors respond to objections to the image by "Refer to consensus" (or something similar), rather than regurgitating their own opinions. This avoids the endless repetition of opinions every time the same issue is raised. We had moderate success with this at the Kim Jong Un page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  How is that substantially different from this proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  It's different in that it is voluntary, and people have objected to imposing (i.e., enforcing) a moratorium.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dervorguilla. Achieving consensus is not efficient and often requires much time and effort. Consensus can change, and we must not hinder an editor's ability to suggest further revisions to established consensus. Edge3 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Edge3: If you had been involved with the continuous drone of "discussion" about subjective trivia often emphatically asserted as objective truth (I don't recall seeing you around for much of that, although you did pop in for a quick Oppose !vote in the last RfC), you might be as weary as many of the rest of us, and you might have a different perspective. Look into the vast archives on this and you will be amazed at what many editors consider just ever-so-important and worthy of unlimited editor-hours. If this proposal fails, stick around for 6 months and gain some first-hand experience in this area; I'm fairly certain you will switch sides for the next moratorium proposal. (No more WP:BLUDGEON from me, I promise.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I found 72 edits by Edge3 on Talk:Donald Trump (0.46% of the total edits made to the page). --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: According to that, the first edit was on 19 November 2016, after the majority of what I'm talking about. One apparently had anything to do with the infobox image, and that's the one I mentioned previously. Thanks for confirming my memory. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: We're in agreement, then, that Edge3 has been here since 19 November 2016 and that he did take part in the discussion -- whereas the editor expressing "STRONG support" for your proposed moratorium has been here since 11 January 2017 and did not. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stipulate to that irrelevance. My point was not to disqualify Edge3, as if that were possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss and Dervorguilla: I've never experienced so much scrutiny on my contribution levels! In some odd way, I'm actually quite flattered.

I'm sympathetic to the reasons for this proposal. In fact, I would prefer that we keep the official portrait as stable as possible, and I would express that opinion accordingly during a future RfC. However, as weary as we may be, we must remember that we do not control the conversation, no matter how experienced or invested we are in the page. We must be open to have our ideas challenged and discussed. Edge3 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

None of us has unlimited time to devote to this article. I have to wonder what the article would be like today if we hadn't spent all that time obsessing over completely subjective trivial details of infobox images. I have to wonder how much better informed editors would be about Wikipedia policy and guideline, if they had used that time to learn about it. Yes, we can decide to "control the conversation" in certain exceptional situations, in the interest of the article and the project. We can decide that, while consensus can change, it doesn't necessarily need to change right now. This is what WP:IAR was created for. Note that options 3 and 5 do not shut down discussion completely, they simply limit its scope. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong OPPOSE - just why oh why is there such a not waiting for the actual official portrait to show up ??? First FIX THE KNOWN PROBLEMS with this one The Official Portrait section above mentions the data about it is simply misentered, in particular the sourcing was not recorded and the copyright information was whiffy. Second, CHANGE WHEN CHANGE IS DUE. As this photo is the PE (President-Elect) placeholder, the official portrait is expected to appear next month. When something happens it will get submitted and we'll figure it out then so I just see no point to announcing a 6-month hold at this time. Markbassett (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. Please don't shout, per WP:SHOUT. 2. Most of your concerns are addressed by the following subsection. 3. I just see no point to announcing a 6-month hold at this time. The point to it is to prevent discussion about things like "I hate that blue White House", "His face is too red, we have to fix that per NPOV!!! Right NOW!!! This article is controlled by Trump-haters!!", and "Hey how about this picture I took? I think it's better than the one we're using now, what do others think?" For no more than 6 months unless we decide to renew the moratorium. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The known problems obvioulsy have not been fixed, I suspect this did not understand the image flaws. And again, since the official portrait issue is expected in February or March there seems just yet again a hurried rush to something. Eh, as I said - when the next thing happens we shall take it to TALK and we'll figure it out then, and so all this is pointless to propose. Markbassett (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: My understanding is that the "known problems" are limited to the file page at Commons. If that needs fixing, that would not be precluded by this moratorium as it would not change the image in any way. That should be addressed at Commons, on the file's talk page. The legitimacy of the current image is not in doubt, as it is identical to that at https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump. Sure, any file page problems should be fixed, and that has nothing to do with this proposal.
Again, even if we get a new portrait in February or March, there will still be an endless succession of discussion about other things about the infobox image (modification of, replacement of) in the interim, and that is what this proposal hopes to prevent. Avoiding an unjustifiable time sink is hardly pointless, since, as I've said, that discussion diverts and distracts from more important things. If I'm wrong about the endless succession, despite the compelling historical evidence that I'm right, the moratorium will have no effect and therefore does no harm. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark, what is your evidence that a new portrait - an actual, official presidential portrait to hang in schools and government offices - is going to come out in February or March? --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

New official portraits

This is an important aspect that I overlooked, and it should be clearly nailed down in case the moratorium proposal passes. Please say what to do if a new portrait appears at whitehouse.gov. This still won't cover every conceivable situation and question, but it would be unproductive to try to do so. Opposers above can !vote here without implying support for the moratorium. Pinging those who have already !voted above. @MelanieN, SW3 5DL, Jack Upland, Twitbookspacetube, MrX, JFG, MB298, and Dervorguilla:

1 - Ignore any new official images; forever use the image linked above.
2 - Install the new official image without discussion.
3 - Exempt the new official image from the moratorium and decide whether to use it.
4 - Wait until the moratorium expires. Then install the new official image without discussion.
5 - Wait until the moratorium expires. Then decide whether to use the new official image. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2 - I feel that any portrait good enough for the United States Government on the White House webpage should be good enough for Wikipedia, so no discussion is needed. I could live with 3 as a compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 - Swayed by JFG below. I disagree with What if a non-official photographer creates and freely releases a better-quality portrait? - I still think U.S. Government quality should be good enough, and the continual desire to get something just a little better (always very subjective) is a large part of the problem this proposal aims to solve. "The better is the enemy of the good" is clearly demonstrated by this issue. But that's a separate question that does not need to be answered here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2 - after definite confirmation that the photo is officially official, the consensus automatically would shift to using that officially official photo. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2 ...probably shift... one could apply BRD if there was an issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
  
• 3 – We have no idea what they may come up with. What if they decide Trump's oil painting is the official portrait?[29][30] What if they release multiple pictures as equally official? What if a non-official photographer creates and freely releases a better-quality portrait? What if we need to crop the portrait to appropriate proportions for various articles? We don't have a magical crystal ball. I'm against a moratorium, but if that comes to pass then I'm even more against blindly applying any new picture that is released. — JFG ^talk 14:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 - MrX 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 but ONLY if the new portrait is official - particularly if it replaces the original one as the official portrait. (Not just any picture posted on the White House website is the "official portrait.") Responding to JFG's questions: What if a non-official photographer creates and freely releases a better-quality portrait? Irrelevant; shut those discussions down. "This other picture is better" has been the whole basis of the interminable arguments up to now. That's exactly why we are calling for a moratorium. What if we need to crop the portrait to appropriate proportions for various articles? IMO we can use only the official portrait as-is. If cropped or prettied-up pictures are used for other articles, that's up to consensus at those articles. But at this article, we use the official portrait. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  (Not just any picture posted on the White House website is the "official portrait.") - Perhaps we can assume that https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump will always show one and only one portrait-like photo, and agree that that's close enough for our purposes. If not, we'll be spending almost as much time debating whether this new image, that somebody turned up on some obscure whitehouse.gov page, qualifies as "official" or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3 but only if the new portrait really is official per MelanieN. The usual on Wikipedia is to use the official portrait. Also the official is copyright free for us, so that's another important reason. Thanks to Mandruss for thinking of this. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

N.B. The official photo is the one that goes to all the courts and agencies in the federal government. That is the one we should use. It does not change for the entire 4 or 8 years. Obama's stayed the same, as did all the other presidents' photos. It's way to costly to keep taking photos. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It usually is the one that was taken when they assumed office. That suggests that the question of a "new official picture" will not come up and this discussion is moot. (This practice has the added benefit of making them look youthful; presidents all seem to age significantly/turn gray during their years in office.) Four or eight years of Trump glowering at us from every wall? It almost makes me sympathetic to the argument for a smiling picture. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If the White House PR department determines that the glower doesn't play well with the public, they will change the official photo to one of a kinder and gentler Donald Trump, guaranteed. If you don't think we should consider the smiler in that scenario because it wasn't first, !vote 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3 — it makes no sense to ignore a new portrait or to blindly apply it.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3, no reason to ignore superior image. MB298 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3, as necessarily implied by my comment in the 'Proposed Moratorium' subsection. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The futility of extended infobox image discussions

• Differences in aesthetic taste. What looks "horrendous" to editor A often looks just fine to editor B. I happen to feel that, to be a proper portrait, an image should be close to the aspect ratio of an 8x10 photo (0.8). That is a product of my age and probably my geographic location. (Our current photo has an aspect ratio of 0.8.) I also have my subjective opinions about how portraits should be cropped, and I don't like to fill 60% of the frame with the subject's head. Others will disagree on these and other aesthetic points, and none of us is right or wrong. Some may agree with me about what makes a proper portrait, while saying that Trump's infobox photo does not need to be a proper portrait.
• Differences in display devices. Color, contrast, and brightness are not standardized across all devices, so we are not all seeing the same thing. Skin tone often seems too red on device A but perfect on device B. If we correct it for device A, the tint is now too far toward the green (the skin tone seems unnaturally brown or yellow) on device B (and we won't know that unless there happens to be an editor around using device B). Thus, there is no universal "best" and it is a fool's errand to try to achieve it. If we could assemble a group of editors using a wide range of devices, and spend a month tweaking and discussing, we might be able to produce something approximating a "best compromise" for a single image, which would not be perfectly optimized for any device. But how practical is that? Is the benefit worth the cost?
• Psychological differences in perception. The previous image was a prime example. Many editors saw a frown that made the subject look bad; others saw a serious and sober expression. Regrettably, too many editors felt their perception was absolute truth, and that will always be the case.

All of these variations exist among our reader base, and it is unreasonable to assume that a small group of 20 or so editors could be representative of that base. This is why about 80% of the time spent debating infobox images is wasted in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Added to this:

• Trump is very controversial. As a result some editors are always convinced the choice of portrait is motivated by a desire to make Trump look bad or stupid.
• Trump is not very photogenic. I think the endless discussions have proved this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Should the dossier be mentioned in the lede?

Should this text be included in the lede:

In January 2017 a private intelligence dossier was released through the media containing claims that Trump had engaged in dubious financial and sexual practices in Russia.

• Support as nom. It seems straightforward to include it because it is written in a neutral manner and is highly pertinent to the topic. The link goes into further detail and is turning into a quite high quality article by now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We need more info. Proposed wording ventures too far into rumors presented as fact. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any other wording in mind? This is extremely neutral and does not going into any details. If you look at the article there is quite a bit corroborating parts of it — and it is notable enough. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is pretty stupid to even consider but have at it. --Malerooster (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please give policy or at least reasoned arguments or they will be discounted entirely. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly Oppose in the lede; consider a sentence or two in the "Russian involvement" section of the General Election area. We need to be restrained here because the dossier remains unverified, and expert opinions differ on whether it is legitimate or not. And if we do put something in the article about it, it certainly won't say "claims that he engaged in dubious financial and sexual practices" for heavens sake! At the dossier article we are careful to avoid the sensationalism, saying things like "alleging that the Russians possess compromising material about Trump which could possibly be used for blackmail" and "that there was contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign during the election." --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems like a more nuanced approach than the other opposes. How do you suggest the section be written? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible wording for the article text is below. Any comments? --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose We need to avoid putting everything that gets into the 24 hour news cycle into the lead. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper": "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Imagine reading this article in 20 years time: "Donald Trump was a real estate tycoon and 45th president of the United States who was alleged to have (Redacted)" TFD (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

But in 20 years time the facts may well have emerged...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between mentioning the existence of a dossier and to repeat the contents wholesale. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please don't repeat the sensational allegations on this talk page. BLP applies here too. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's just allegations, and they have been discredited.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No they haven't. They remain unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the report contains errors.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your understanding, if based of a daily mail article showing a passport-cover is demonstrably naïve. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The report does contain some errors, yes. But that does not mean that the thrust of it has been debunked. It hasn't been verified, either. It's just allegations. But they are newsworthy allegations, reportable with appropriate cautions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a BLP not a tabloid. This is just political fodder and it does not belong here no matter how you word it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lede as undue. Support Melanie's "Possible wording" below as some mention must be made that the POTUS could be compromised in some manner. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - leave it for the tabloids. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's not appropriate for his biography article, let alone at the lead. Try asking at the Sexual Misconduct article or maybe some other article ... Markbassett (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/trump-dossier-a-crude-provocation-compiled-by-a-fugitive-crook-says-russian-minister

I see you included this at the end of your "Presidential transition" section, please include how this document has had several figures deny it's authenticity and how Buzzfeed, the news outlet that posted it, received backlash from multiple news stations including CNN who tried to separate themselves from them. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible wording

I oppose putting anything about this in the lede, but something like this could be put into the article, in the "Russian involvement" subsection of the "General election" section. I was asked to propose some wording, so here is something which is well sourced and hopefully neutral.

• In January 2017, intelligence sources informed Trump about the existence of a report written by a British private intelligence investigator. The report, referred to as a dossier, contains unverified allegations that the Russian government is in possession of compromising material about Trump, including damaging or embarrassing material which could be used to blackmail him. The dossier also claims that during the presidential campaign there were multiple contacts between Russian sources and people associated with Trump's campaign. Sources stressed that the information is unverified. Trump himself denounced the report as false, as did spokesmen for the Russian government.

References

--MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving was pushed to Donald Trump#Presidential transition. Wording is problematic because it leads too early with the theory Trump's Russia-Manchurian candidate. As it stands right now in the section, I have no problems. NewLeaf (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Debt/deficit confusion

I've removed a paragraph from the article that appears to conflate the Federal Budget Deficit (the disparity between federal income and spending) with the National Debt (the total amount owed by the federal government). This is not the fault of the editor who added it (although the use of "abysmal" was obviously... er... abysmal), but rather it was the fault of the poorly-written article in The Hill that was used as a source. The article confuses debt with deficit and was basically just parroting talking points and making wild claims about how effective the policy would be, without giving any real indication of how it would be achieved or getting the opinion of any economic experts or Democrats. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey, thanks for your note. Instead of removing this information, why not work together to improve its accuracy? The fact that Trump wants to reduce federal spending is notable, irrespective of opinions about the feasibility, magnitude or impact of such a plan. And yes, US debt is unfortunately abysmal, and it has been growing relentlessly, no matter who was leading the country (except under Clinton). Nowhere else have we seen yearly drama such as a shutdown of government for lack of authorization to increase the debt. Well, perhaps Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany, I'll grant you that. In all seriousness, let's document what the new administration intends to do. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's not burden our editing with editors' personal opinions as to the National Debt or related public policies. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Frankly, the paragraph cannot easily be saved. ALL administrations in most nations of the world pledge to reduce deficit and/or debt if at all possible, so the fact that the Trump administration is making wild claims about how it is going to achieve debt reduction isn't really notable. Besides, anyone with some basic understanding of economics would know the headline debt amount is of little consequence. What really matters is the Debt-to-GDP ratio, which for the United States is currently steady at around a perfectly manageable 105%. And the annual budget deficit has dropped from 1.4 trillion at the end of Bush presidency to 0.5 trillion at the end of the Obama presidency, which is not in any conceivable way "abysmal". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably off topic and/or already decided, but imo the Donald Trump#Political positions section needs serious trimming in this biography. Things like this would be omitted as TMI. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC) I've been heavily considering trimming that section. It has its own dedicated article, so if we summarize more then that's an easy way to slim down the article. Barring any objections, I'll likely start that soon. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) See the section above, "Can we remove the "political positions" section?", where you will find some support for this idea. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Yikes, I've failed talk page awareness. Collapsed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Trimming prose

I've had a go on the first round of a much-needed trimming here. My focus was on cutting the "less important" political positions (that are discussed in detail in the article for that, and the focus in his bio really should be on the most prominent of his positions), reducing content about what meetings he's had and what his advisors have said independently, plus what other "experts" have said, because that isn't actually about Trump's stated positions. I also trimmed some of the extraneous detail from the Miss Universe and professional wrestling sections, which are probably the least important aspects for anyone who wants to learn who Donald Trump is. Posting here for transparency. Anyone have thoughts/suggestions? I'm done trimming the fat for the moment, but another round of excising the least important content is probably necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you are doing a really good job. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Great job indeed. Apart from obsolete or off-topic stuff, have you made sure that the text you removed was readable elsewhere in the policy articles? — JFG ^talk 23:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The wording is obviously different, but the basic facts I removed seem to be present in the other article in equal or greater detail. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Health Care Position

@The Wordsmith: I spent a fair bit of time researching Trump's positions on health care and trying to represent it fairly, and am rather disappointed that you trimmed it. I don't think the single statement by his campaign is necessarily a fully representative source on Trump's position. I think sources reflecting Trump's remarks on the topic are highly relevant and informative. I welcome comments from others. @Somedifferentstuff:? @Anythingyouwant:? @JFG:? Note: I don't watch this page, so use {{replyto}} or {{ping}} if you want me to pay attention. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sondra, such information is welcome in full at Political positions of Donald Trump. But we are trying to keep this article as primarily a biography. The "political positions" section of this article had gotten way too detailed. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey:To echo what Melanie said, your content was well-written and informative. It would certainly be a solid addition to the article about his political positions. However, information of the type "on X date he said A, but on Y date he said B" is too detailed for the general biography. The idea is to represent his current position in as few words as possible to reasonably do so. Please don't interpret my removal as a judgment on your writing or research, and more trying to adjust the content weighting to reflect what should be in a biography like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: Same comment: great prose for Political positions of Donald Trump; have you placed it there? We only need a couple sentences of summary here (which you are obviously free to improve). — JFG ^talk 22:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I had completely ignored Political positions of Donald Trump, and will try to edit that article on this topic within the next few days. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump redirect

Hey everyone. There's a discussion at Talk:Trump#Requested move 21 January 2017 as to whether Trump should redirect to this article or not. Thoughts from this article's contributors are appreciated Nohomersryan (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

He is no longer a businessman

He has resigned from the Trump organization on January 19, 2017.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/donald-trump-resigns-business/

207.245.44.6 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Y Added! Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Reverted — He hasn't resigned. There are some major issues here that should be discussed before we add anything. See:

• https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-promised-to-resign-from-his-companies-but-no-record-hes-done-so

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump is still a businessman. He has given up management authority, but he still owns it all. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Trump organization does not belong to Donald Trump. He was promoted to president of the Trump organization in 1971. He has resigned from that post and replaced by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. He receives pension from the Trump organization, but he is in no way an owner of it.

104.219.203.179 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CITE - If this is the case then it should be easy to find a RELIABLE third-party source for it! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Kinda makes a person wonder: if Trump doesn't own the Trump Organization - if he was just a hired president - then who DOES own it? (Echo answers, who?) The answer is: he wasn't "promoted" to president by some outside owner. He took over the business (The Trump Organization, which is really an umbrella for multiple investments and properties), gave himself the title of president, and expanded it till it now includes 400 or 500 different entities. Most or all of them are LLCs, in some cases wholly owned by Trump, in some cases by Trump with partners or possibly residual owners from pre-1971. We really don't know any details because he hasn't released his tax returns, and everything is done as LLCs which are very private, rather than corporations which might have a more transparent operation. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess some of the commenters here have it backwards: Trump is still the owner of The Trump Organization but he has given away management to his two sons, who were previously vice presidents. Note that Ivanka resigned as well (she used to be a VP there). — JFG ^talk 21:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To MelanieN's comment: All the assets owned by Trump were reported in his FEC financial disclosure form (see article: Pursuant to regulations, Trump published a 92-page financial disclosure form listing all his assets, liabilities, income sources and hundreds of business positions. It's true that co-owners of some partnership structures, where Trump is not directly or indirectly the sole shareholder, are not disclosed there, but by the same logic they wouldn't be mentioned on Trump's tax returns either. — JFG ^talk 22:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

It's the shame the FEC disclosure gives hardly any information. It would be interesting to know details of his creditors, including foreign governments, businesses and individuals, who might use their position to curry favor with His Royal Highness. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As a commercial real estate developer, he likely borrows from banks, not governments or other businesses. But yes it would be nice to see where from. A few sources have mentioned some banks he deals with but I can't be bothered to dig them out today (and that would be too much detail for the biography article). In their billionaire rankings, Forbes has compiled the amount of outstanding debt per project, but they don't say which banks are involved. — JFG ^talk 23:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

He's probably not a "television personality" any more. Should it be "former television personality"?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

CREW_vs._Trump

Any interested editors I could use a hand with the above article regarding Trump's COI from his businesses, and there's little doubt Sean Spicer will be involved in this. Thanks in advance for any assistance. I made it a separate article to begin with (which we can turn into a redirect if need be if we decide down the road merge it back into another article). Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It may be too early for this; we'll have to see how much coverage it gets. It would help a lot if you would do full reference links so that we can tell where they are coming from, i.e., if they are independent reliable sources, without having to click on each link to see its source. If you aren't sure how to do full references, ask me at my talk page and I will explain. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump war draft

The wiki article says "Trump was not drafted during the Vietnam War" yet the source for that information says Trump avoided being drafted by getting a series of student deferments. Whilst saying that Trump avoided being drafted may be controversial, according to the source listed and others it is accurate, whereas saying that Trump wasn't drafted is highly misleading. A caveat could be added to the statement that he used student deferments to avoid being drafted "like many others" or something similar to show that this wasn't a rare practice, but as the wiki currently stands it fails the usual standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorantha (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo used in election articles

Not all of the articles in the category Category:United States presidential election, 2016 by state have the same photo, some of them use the cropped image, others the uncropped, shouldn't they all use the cropped image, for that's the same with Clinton's image. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

At this page we have consensus about what image to use in the infobox for this page. Consensus at other articles may differ. You can certainly propose at other articles that they use the image that is used here, and see if there is consensus to do so. Or you could boldly change it at an article or two and see what reaction you get. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Did this not happen because of your request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Replace Donald Trump image with presidential portrait? I added a new bot request. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence needs to be simplified to the primacy of his current office. I propsed this. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. He is known for being an American businessman, television personality and politician. How there is a claim of consensus when the previous discussion said no consensus was reached and the fact he's only been in the role for 4 days. For reference his predecessor, Obama, doesn't mention lawyer, law professor, community organizer, Nobel Prize winner or Senator in the first few paragraphs. "President of the united States" is a rather penultimate office and distinction. It is also his current role. Trump is known for other things but the office he holds should be set out as what he is. First sentence should not give equal weight to anything else. I didn't remove that information, just moved it to a position that is subordinate. --DHeyward (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with DHeyward. MB298 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree - It's disruptive to ignore the hidden comment and it's dishonest to change the listing at the top of the page as if consensus supports your bold edit. Start an RfC if you think this should be changed, otherwise please respect the fact that other editors have already reached consensus to keep the current wording.- MrX 03:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree We actually never use "their current office" as the description of who they are in the lede. The first sentence is to describe the person - a description which preceded his current position and will survive it - rather than to name his current office as if it was synonymous with the person. None of the articles about other recent presidents start the way you want to do it. For example,

• Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017.
• George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009 and 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000.
• William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001

Each of these people was primarily a politician; that is their main identity and so it is the only "occupation" listed in the lede sentence. (They are also lawyers, authors, etc. but that's not what they are primarily known for.) Here's how we have handled someone who had a significant, notable career outside of politics, in other words the most similar to Trump:

• Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who was the 40th President of the United States, from 1981 to 1989.

It's the same with other office holders: the lede describes them as a politician and whatever else, not "so-and-so is a Senator" or governor or whatever.

• John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is American politican who currently serves as the senior United States Senator from Arizona.
• Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown Jr. (born April 7, 1938) is an American politician and lawyer who has served as the 39th Governor of California since 2011.

This is why we have a strong consensus to do the lede sentence here this way. We have had long discussions about the order to put the various words (see above, "Current consensuses, #11"), but pretty much everybody has agreed to follow the pattern of how this has been done for other officeholders. As MrX said, it would require an RfC (which would be pretty much a waste of everyone's time) to change it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree per MrX. Process first, then content. But my own feeling is that we have spent more than enough time debating this and the status quo is good enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree – Irrespective of the OP's argument, their bold editing against painstakingly-established and well-advertised consensus was disruptive. Fundamentally, the reason Trump's lead sentence is different from prior presidents is because his life was different from theirs. — JFG ^talk 13:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree per MrX, JFG, et al. We've already gone round with this one. If you think it needs changing, start an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  Please no more RfCs. An RfC should only be a last resort tool when communication between regular editors has produced an impasse. The situation here is pretty clear cut. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree - Apart from very occasional tweaks, the vast majority of editors who regularly contribute to this article are happy with the current wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree - Déjà vu all over again. For all the reasons stated the last times this was discussed. And please, not another RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Residences

I can't seem to find a section in this article or that of his family about their various homes. Shouldn't such a section exist, perhaps within a description of his personal life or family? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No.--Malerooster (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Such a curt reply can be taken as pretty rude. I'm not a novice here and you don't appear to be either, so why the disdain? Care to explain why you say no? Most major biographies describe where the person lives or lived, even if it's a city and not details about their house. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@ɱ, because its a stupid idea. --Malerooster (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A dedicated section seems like a bit much. We talk about the "mock tudor" home where he grew up, his residence at Trump Tower, his residence at Mar a Lago, his residence at the White House. It might be worth giving a number to indicate how many other homes he owns (if any). Do you know what that number is?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that mentions of his homes are scattered around, but there should be a few sentences dedicated to his residences. There are many very good sources that list all of them (I believe 6 residences total) and many more sources that talk about the details of individual homes of his. I comment because I noticed his large estate in Bedford, New York is not mentioned on any Trump articles and should be. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 07:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The home in Bedford is discussed at Foreign policy of Donald Trump, in a context that gives it significance (Ghadaffi camping out on the lawn). Let's face it, the guy owns a lot of stuff, and I would suggest that, if you want to list them, a separate new list might be in order.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I figured that bit might've been mentioned somewhere, but only looked for likely places providing a list/prose description of residences. Do you think I should create a section on this article or on "Family of Donald Trump", or do you have a better idea? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 08:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: put the info at List_of_residences_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

All of Trump's properties are businesses and he has apartments in at least two of them, in Trump Tower and Mara Lago. I don't see any reason to have a section on these. There are already articles on both these properties and many of his other properties. TFD (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant - that would be improper because that article merely lists the residences, and doesn't describe any of them in any detail. The Four Deuces - you're wrong; the house I just mentioned, Seven Springs, was never a commercial enterprise (though sure it was proposed to be); neither was his Greenwich estate, and likely other current or former homes. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The list of presidential residences is still a good place to start.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit Draft:Residences of Donald Trump if they wish to! There's a list of good references that can be used at the bottom. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

Hello, my name is Ariana and I am critiquing this article as part of an assignment for my honors course.

One thing I noticed about some of the sources used for the "facts" presented is a lot of them came from unreliable sources, specifically newspapers and blogs that are written by biased journalists. Two of the most prominent sources were The New Yorker and the Huffington Post, which should never be used to validate information about a person's history.

Another thing I noticed is that there was some information that was unnecessary, such as the section about his health. Medical records are very personal, and unless the person who wrote this Wikipedia page has Donald Trump's permission, they shouldn't disclose the fact that he has high blood pressure. It's also completely irrelevant to his character.

With all respect, Arianabarron (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is riddled with bias and passive-aggressive partisan hate, I like Wikipedia but this article is definitely on of their lowest points. I applaud you looking into each source and not just using them blindly, this is very honorable. Vox, The New Yorker, and the Huffington Post have all been used yet I've seen such sources as Breitbart thrown out, this website has a serious problem concerning bias. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Arianabarron

Please identify which citations you consider unreliable, and the statements which you think they are unreliable sources for. This will enable other editors to examine whether they meet WP:RS and, if not, look for alternative sources, or remove the statements.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC).

Hi Ariana. Bias and reliability are two separate things. All media have a bias, and lack of bias does not mean facts will be accurate. Health issues are included because the mainstream has decided it is an issue of importance for people running for president. Rather than have editors with their different views determine what should be included, we rely on what mainstream sources do. The standard for determining whether this is a good article is whether it is what one would expect to find in a comparable one in the Washington Post or similarly respected source. I think it falls short. It is overly hostile and pays excessive attention to minor details. Also, there is a tendancy to use sources such as the Huffington Post because they provide free access. Not only is it easier for editors who do not have subscriptions to sites such as the Washington Post, but it is easier for readers who want to follow the links to the underlying stories. TFD (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Still doesn't explain why they don't use Breitbart but uses Huffington Post, both are equal in quality you just use one that represents your political affiliation. There's that bias again. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the problem here. You actually believe HuffPo and Breitbart "are both equal in quality"???? HuffPo at least makes an effort to be a serious news organization by employing well-regarded investigative journalists. Breitbart is nothing more than a cesspool of right-wing invective, alt-right racism and conspiracy-based bullshit. Something like HuffPo can be used to verify non-controversial material, or as a backup for other sources. Breitbart cannot be used for anything other than something about Breitbart. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The data appear to support Arianabarron's point about HuffPo. See Pew Research Center, Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group:

BBC (most trusted); NPR; PBS; Wall Street Journal; ABC News; CBS News; NBC News; CNN; USA Today; Google News; New York Times; Washington Post; MSNBC; Guardian; Bloomberg; New Yorker; Yahoo News; Fox News; Breitbart; Huffington Post; Colbert Report; Daily Show; ... (most distrusted).

The bar chart shows that neither the New Yorker, nor Fox News, nor Breitbart, nor HuffPo are regarded as trustworthy news sources.

@Arianabarron: Could you use Pew's survey results to calculate a "trust index" for this article compared to others? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably, but there wouldn't be much point as trust and reliability/accuracy/journalism standards don't correlate very well. I don't really understand their ranking system if WSJ is the only one with all purple but isn't ranked first. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Straw man in lead

The lead includes the following straw man:

His positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.

Of course that misrepresents what "scholars and commentators" have actually said. The most common words "scholars and commentators" have used to describe his political views are "racist"/"xenophobic," "misogynist"/"sexist" and so on. Since "scholars" have been invoked, see for example

• Lindsay Pérez Huber, "Make America Great again: Donald Trump, Racist Nativism and the Virulent Adherence to White Supremecy Amid U.S. Demographic Change," Charleston L. Rev. 215 (2016)

And regarding his voter base:

• A ‘basket of deplorables’? A new study finds that Trump supporters are more likely to be Islamophobic, racist, transphobic and homophobic, LSE US Centre

For quite some time, there has been a very serious debate over whether and to which extent Trump can be called a fascist:[31]

An unresolved debate on that query has taken place since Trump launched his candidacy last summer. Writers like Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker and Robert Kagan in The Washington Post have answered “yes,” citing as evidence Trump’s ethnic demagoguery, his scorn for and ignorance of the existing democratic system, his indulgence in conspiracy thinking, and his open admiration of autocrats like Vladimir Putin. Other analysts, perhaps most compellingly Dylan Matthews in Vox, counter by noting that Trump’s movement differs from historical fascism in key ways

The description should be changed to reflect what most scholars and commentators have actually said instead of misrepresenting it by using deliberately milder and less common terms that come across as straw men. --Tataral (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We're not going to call him a Fascist, and much more of that kind of talk will get removed as violating BLP. As for the xenophobia and such among his followers, that is well covered at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. (And by the way, this is not an example of a "straw man" situation. Not even close.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, says who? If enough reliable, high quality sources discuss whether his political views can be called fascist, then we're going to include it. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on whether individual editors like what they read. Also, please refrain from misrepresenting what other editors write ("call him fascist", as opposed to the actual proposal, namely to address in a nuanced and neutral way the different views over whether his political views can be described as such, as discussed in the article in The New Republic and other sources) --Tataral (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from including a well-researched and cited section on Trump and fascism. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No doubt some scholars will have a more negative view of Trump than the majority. Actual fascism scholars were asked about Trump and the vast majority said he was not fascist.[32] Robert Kagan? He thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And of course racists voted for Trump, just as the always vote Republican or for other right-wing parties in other countries. TFD (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article only underlines that this is a significant debate among what this article calls "scholars and commentators." Others have argued that his political platform does indeed fulfill the necessary criteria for being described as such. We should cover this controversy. --Tataral (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: While it is true scholarly sources exist that use stronger words to describe some of Trump's unpleasant proclivities, in such controversial circumstances Wikipedia's policy requires us to eschew individual sources and rely on a preponderance of reliable sources. The press "herd" dials back the language a bit, and our article reflects that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well quite a "herdW does call him fascist. I don't have time now to research it properly, but just do a web-search and you will find 50+ articles from reliable sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've "herd" him called a lot of things. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"50+" in 131 million news articles is not really that many. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It is my impression that the question of whether Trump's policies/views can be called fascist, or have similarities with fascism, is one of the most frequently discussed questions in sources that discuss Trump's political ideology. It is a debate that has been carried out in a serious manner in many, many sources for quite some time[33] I'm not an advocate of a definite answer to that question, that is, I don't think we should "call him fascist", but that we should address how scholars and commentators have debated this issue (obviously this would have to be in the Donald Trump#Political positions section, possibly in a sub section on his position in the ideological landscape). Also note that this section was not simply a proposal to "call him fascist" but more about how to describe his political views generally, not limited to the fascism debate. --Tataral (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine mentioning some of that stuff in a sub-article, but we must maintain WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If the not-straw man statement in the lead has been whitewashed for BLP then it would be better removed. zzz (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas for articles to add in the See Also section...

• Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump
• Political positions of Donald Trump
• Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
• The Trump Organization
• Trump family
• Family of Donald Trump
• Protests against Donald Trump
• Timeline of protests against Donald Trump
• Presidential transition of Donald Trump
• Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
• Cabinet of Donald Trump
• Presidency of Donald Trump
• Immigration policy of Donald Trump
• List of things named after Donald Trump
• Assassination threats against Donald Trump

Just to name a few - BoredBored (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute, User:BoredBored. I see that you went ahead and added quite a few of these. But we are not supposed to put things in "See also" if they are already linked in the body of the text. According to WP:NOTSEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Many of the ones you added are already linked in the text, and you really should check, find which ones are already in the text - and removed them from "see also". --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN -- I went to Donald Trump and did Ctrl+F to see if there were repeats. Now there is a list below showing which ones repeat and which ones do not:

• Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump -- N
• Political positions of Donald Trump -- Technically Y
• Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations -- Technically N (only focuses on the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording)
• The Trump Organization -- Y
• Trump family -- Y
• Family of Donald Trump -- Y
• Protests against Donald Trump -- Y
• Timeline of protests against Donald Trump -- N
• Presidential transition of Donald Trump -- Y
• Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 -- N
• Cabinet of Donald Trump -- Y (But not enough info -- consider merging Cabinet of Donald Trump to Donald Trump)
• Presidency of Donald Trump -- See statement above (Presidency of Donald Trump and Cabinet of Donald Trump were in the same section)
• Immigration policy of Donald Trump -- Y (But not enough)
• List of things named after Donald Trump - Y
• Assassination threats against Donald Trump -- N

Thanks for telling me, cuz I didn't know that :) --BoredBored (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

Change the |education= parameter to |alma_mater=. It just listed the school that he studied, not the degree. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"controversal or false"-campaign-statements

In my opinion, the intro-section of the article is biased. It states that "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false". This might be true, but every politician lies or "bends the truth" to a certain degree. However, the article makes it seem like Trump is the only person to ever be elected President after "lying" during his campaign. It's a clear form of bias. So Instead the article should say something like "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were considered highly controversial by the news media and a siginificant part of the American people".

Nuhr (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See open RfC at #RfC on including "false" in the lede. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to respond directly to the concern here. I think it's correct that most campaigns are full of controversial statements, so that need not be stated in the lede. What has been unique about Mr. Trump's political career is that many of his statements are demonstrably false. That has been reported as being singular and his success has been so widely attributed to his misstatments that these falsehoods should be mentioned in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have any ideas on what to add to the article, please post them here!

We need to know what to improve in Donald Trump, so if you have any ideas, we'd love to hear them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredBored (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of self-explanatory, but I guess it won't harm anyone by reminding them twice. MB298 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Something that should be pinned down in an encyclopedic article about Trump's policy/presidency:

Culture:

Public Broadcasting to be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities are to be eliminated entirely: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315134-dem-rep-trump-administration-will-thrust-country-into-a-new-dark-ages

International security:

Beheaded U.S. embassies without replacements in line: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fires-us-ambassadors-no-replacements-a7538256.html

Near-complete housecleaning in State Department: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/26/the-state-departments-entire-senior-management-team-just-resigned/ --84.141.20.45 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump article evaluation

HI. I am new to Wikipedia and just created a account for a class assignment. My first assignment was to pick an existing Wikipedia page and evaluate certain aspects of the article. I just wanted to comment how I was impressed with how updated the article already was. Donald Trump just became president a couple of days ago and it is already updated on the page. I was also impressed about the amount of citations. I clicked several of them and they all led me to the cite used. I know with political topics it is hard to stay neutral, but I found that this article was and stated straight facts rather than opinions. How this article was written is a great reference for me to use to know how to write a good article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Hoopesha (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)