Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.127.80.163 (talk) at 20:34, 5 December 2016 (→‎When he was owner of New Jersey Generals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Trump Photo 2 Rfc


Should the infobox image be replaced with one of these photos?:
  • Image 1
    Image 1
  • Image 2
    Image 2
  • Image 3
    Image 3
  • Image 4
    Image 4
  • Image 5
    Image 5
  • Current
    Current

Dyl1G (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G (Additional photos added by Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

That could be one possible although it's B&W. Unfortunately, most CC Donald Trump photos are not NPOV. If you think you found one suggest it. If there isn't any, I guess we can wait for his greatagain.gov site to post one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyl1G (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is the current image not NPOV? Anyway, I really don't think we should switch to a black and white picture. Dustin (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any change to infobox image before the official White House portrait is released, as a cost/benefit fail (actually I Oppose this RfC). Oppose this choice in particular, for various reasons including B&W. OP's NPOV argument appears to be a misunderstanding of NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyl1G: Ok, but that's a misuse of the RfC process. An RfC is for asking a specific question ("Do you have any suggestions?" is not a specific question) or making a specific proposal, and seeking a consensus on the question or proposal. If your intent is to solicit photo suggestions, you should remove the {{Rfc}} template from this thread and assume that there is enough participation at this article to get a fair number of viable suggestions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: I put the Rfc back because I found a photo which I think is good and will add more when found Dyl1G (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G[reply]

@Dyl1G: Fine. Please at least do it right. You code one Rfc template for each RfC, not two. And this is not what is meant by a Wikipedia proposal, so "prop" should not be coded. Finally, this is a biography, so "bio" should be coded to list this at Biographies. I fixed all this for you the first time around, this time it's your turn. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss Fixed. Dyl1G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G[reply]

@Dyl1G: You dropped the Politics listing. Fixed.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT - Please let's replace the current photo of Trump that is in the infobox here, and on the United States 2016 President Elections page! Anything is better, as long as he is smiling and doesn't have a microphone obscuring him.--FeralOink (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until an official presidential photo is released. Until then, the longstanding photo should remain, as it has undergone much discussion and survived all of them. Chase|talk 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, This RfC, even though handled poorly, is only a few days old and already you're ready to shut it down. What are you afraid of? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: Assuming facts not in evidence. Who said I'm afraid of something? Did you read my !vote argument? Anyway, I don't have the power to shut down RfCs. I stated my view that we should do so, and, if that view gains consensus, the RfC will be shut down. That's how RfCs work, and in fact an RfC was aborted on this page just weeks ago because a consensus was reached to abort it. I welcome you to particpate in the process instead of making spurious and fallacious arguments to try to circumvent it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyl1G: With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Given the present location I doubt this RfC is going to get much attention as it is. This entire talk page is beginning to resemble a wall of graffiti -- who notices any one item anymore. i.e.One voice in a middle of an arguing crowd. Thanx for the effort at least. I'll see what I can do to bring attention to the matter. I added the other photos to this gallery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Not being handled very well? Is it anybody's fault that 27 threads were started after they started this one? I'm sure Dyl1G appreciates the "all due respect", but your reasoning frankly sucks, and that's been an ongoing pattern throughout your disruption of this talk page on this issue. Let's note that you found a solution to that problem 22 minutes after you complained about it,[2] but your complaint remains. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I extended respect and merely mentioned a general criticism that the RfC wasn't being noticed by many, explained that it was buried in a sea of talk, and did not fault anyone personally as it is obviously no one editor's fault. Once again this is not the place to vent petty peeves with repeated personal attacks. Anyway, it appears there will not be enough support for a comparable, pleasing and formal image for Trump's bio', as the Clinton bio' has received, yet you're still venting. Please try to calm yourself, try not to violate talk page rules again and confine your remarks to article improvement as the rest of us have done. Thanks for your patience and understanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't just say that it was buried, you said that the RfC was not being handled very well. Nobody felt it was unduly buried until you did, and you could have just solved the perceived problem without a comment about the RfC not being handled very well. No post here was necessary or useful. That's the difference between facilitating collaboration and trying to undermine it. I'm quite calm, by the way, and opposing talk page disruption is a widely accepted way to indirectly improve the article and is anything but a talk page violation. It is not personal attack. It would be personal attack if one said something like, "You are an incredibly obtuse person who should spend a lot less time talking and more time watching and learning about accepted Wikipedia decision-making process." The talk page violation is your persistent disruption. You and I are indeed involved in a days-long one-on-one conflict, and the difference between us is that I'm supporting process and using sound reasoning, and you have done neither. Don't expect me to give you the last word on this, as you have absolutely no leg to stand on. However, we can continue this on my user talk page if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lecture me on process when you just took it upon yourself to suppress supporting opinion across the page. And your recital here about what you didn't say, but said anyway, is sort of a cheap stunt and clearly a personal attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Behave like a belligerent newbie for days, and expect to be treated like one. We would have been at WP:ANI about 24 hours ago with a disruptive editing complaint, but I'm well aware of the ineffectiveness of that approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only time ANI's are not effective is when peevish editors go there expecting to get a ruling about peckish issues that don't involve policy violations. When there is a clear policy violation they are effective. Problem? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only that were true. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The URL is a governmental one, but there is actually a 501(c)(4) organization behind (at least some of) the contents, founded back in April or May or something like that, aka probably campaign-owned. I would be careful yanking photos from there, unless the photo in question is specifically licensed, as an individual photo, unmistakably. You might be able to get a proper answer if you email media_at_ptt_dot_gov (which I guess stands for potus-transition-team), although that contact is intended more for newspaper-journalists rather than wikipedians per se. But if you are going to do that, might as well just ask them to directly upload a proper ccbysa4 photo to commons. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Incomplete or ill considered here, the photo has been discussed since he election with general result of wait for the official photo. The proposal above gives no basis to reconsider that, a basis of how these photos were chosen or any rationale why they would be preferred or why a change is much needed. The existing photo is not problematic by WP:BLP items at WP:BLPTALK or WP:MUG, and is reasonable by WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:IUP. And these have no other special context to prefer them - they're not iconic of the moment or acceptance speech, not even after the election. The existing photo actually seems somewhat more appropriate as the image he won with, but I'll suggest that status quo should apply -- because if we change this one on a whim, then what's to stop another coming up tomorrow and the next day and dueling whims ??? We'd have to toss anything out in a couple of months anyway when the official photo arrives so wait for the official photo. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added image 6&7 Dyl1G (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G[reply]

  • Additional Comment - In connection with my above support, I see "Wait for an official photo" as more of an excuse to do nothing than a choice based on the photo itself. The article is being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per day, if there is a better, recent photo of him, it should be changed/used immediately for all of the future viewers of the article to see including the majority who are not talk-page viewers or editors at all. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is out of context, and shows Trump with sort of a frown with his eyes shifted to the left. In terms of president's and notable people's biographies, the image is far from fine. Raises the question of why this bio isn't treated the same as the others, esp since there are formal images that show Trump smiling to chose from. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you obsess over having him smile? Look at the official portrait of FDR or Trump's choice of a cover photo for his own campaign book. The presidency is not about being cheerful! — JFG talk 05:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Obsess" is unfair. And it's not like that Q hasn't been answered before, in detail, in Talk archives. (And Trump's book had a specific focus/purpose. Not a BLP. Sheesh.) IHTS (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks IHTS. -- JFG, once again, it's about treating the Trump biography the same way other such bio's are treated. As mentioned, the Trump bio is viewed by the readers thousands of times a day, and as many have already expressed, they are going to wonder why Trump's bio/photo isn't par with the others, esp when they compare it to Clinton's, which many have done and will continue to do, esp on inauguration day. Don't expect you to acknowledge any of this at this point -- I only reiterate for newcomers to the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: I understand where you're coming from; I once advocated for a change of picture, or at least some retouching of this one. Ultimately, this choice is very subjective. All along the campaign, there have been many debates over Trump and Clinton's pictures, including a particular photographer pushing his portraits… Ultimately it's a matter of WP:JDLI and for both candidates I guess the least-bad image outlasted the other options. I also believe that stability over time and consistency across articles are more important than style. I appreciate your effort to rectify bias; I just don't happen to believe that the stability of this particular picture is a result of anti-Trump bias (and God knows we've seen a lot of such bias). — JFG talk 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the current photo looks ridiculous with smoke coming out of his ear. Nor is the photo representative of a decent serious pose. To an unbiased viewer, it could easily be assumed that the photo is a back-handed slap, trying to coast under the radar and still maintain a narrative that Wikipedia is an unbiased source for knowledge, as opposed to a cog in what is viewed by half the country as a corrupt and biased media. Mojavegreen (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support – The current image is definitely not representative of a neutral pose for which the main image of an article should be. Any of the above selections would be infinitely better than the current, which to me, seems to portray Donald Trump as not-so-good. NikolaiHo☎️ 06:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wait for official portrait. This is not a matter for partisan discussion. Usable photographs of politicians can be hard for us to get hold of. They must have a licence we can use, they must be of good quality, and they must show something of the character of the subject. As well as being reasonably current. This photo is of excellent quality- as opposed to what must be hundreds of phone camera shots - it shows Trump at a campaihn rally looking reasonably calm and controlled, and it has a CC license. Ticks all the boxes. If and when there is an official portrait, then it will be of the highest quality, it will have a usable licence, and it will have the full approval of the subject FWIW. While I can understand that there are those who are vehemently pro or anti any given politician, Wikipedia's needs override partisan debate, which is likely to be arid and acrimonious. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Regardless of any "partisan" input you feel may exist, the fact remains, the Trump lede photo is not par with Clinton's, President's and other such notable's photos. This has been made clear several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : You do realize that the Clinton photo [3] is the official photo from the State Department. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : A quick read of the submissions above reveals an overflowing wealth of partisan input. The more experienced hands here are not taking any such stance, but BLP image quality shouldn't be a matter of counting noses pro and con. The wikisuitability of the image is paramount. In line with similar articles, the official portrait will be the best. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing biased about, and nothing wrong with, a picture's subject not smiling. In addition, as has been noted, one in which he was smiling would not actually reflect his persona throughout the campaign. Editors should wait for an official presidential picture. AndrewOne (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to change it now, just wait until the official presidential photograph comes out next month and use that. MB298 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current picture is actually rather flattering -- he appears to be listening to someone else. The pictures where he is smiling make him look rather predatory to my eye -- a salesman. I think that any image used for this article will be accused of some sort of NPOV slant; so I agree that we should just use the official photo when there is one. There will be enough strife with the article. Elinruby (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: while we do need a better photo of Trump than those we currently have, none of those suggested are any better (and in some cases are much worse). Ebonelm (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Image 3 is better (w/o a microphone), and if a microphone is used, Image 2 is much better for him (this is not about other persons photos). YahwehSaves (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Change his position on gay marriage to "Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled" http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/index.html. Currently there is an old statement, from when Trump was battling it out with Ted Cruz, and trying to keep the evangelical vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.5.2 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This update, among others, is being considered in the #Working draft section below. — JFG talk 10:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False statements

While reading the intro to copy for another purpose, I found this statement to be a bit pov and pointed. Disregarding "controversial", "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false." So we're just going to call the man out as a liar as a statement of fact in the lead? I happen to agree with the statement but I find it true of most politicians. While lacking sourcing, I have little doubt, like about every politician, false statements were made. For a BLP, we tend to give a certain amount of difference for political spin and statements of his opinion. I think "or false" should be removed as inappropriate, but if maintained, I should be qualified, such as adding "or , in some cases, false." Morphh (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is the result of this lengthy RfC [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, majority rule "trumps" NPOV - well, Strong Oppose. I don't like him, but that's pretty damn bias, particularly considering the media we rely on as sourcing was outwardly supporting Clinton. I recall Obama getting lie of the year for Obamacare, don't expect I'll see that in his lead. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're aware that "majority rule" is not the defining characteristic in play during an RfC closure. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but anyone can see it sticks out like a sore thumb as a POV statement in a BLP when placed in Wikipedia's voice. Whatever the arguments of sourcing from WP and Politico, its current phrasing should be a non starter. Anyway, I've said my thoughts. Morphh (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which means that it was 1) policy based, 2) backed by reliable sources and ALSO had majority support. You act like majority of editors supporting Wikipedia policy is a bad thing or something. Wow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Morphh: See WP:NPOV, § 1 (WP:YESPOV), graf 1 ("Wikipedia aims to describe disputes... NPOV means ... including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."). Have you found a significant number of sources that dispute the point of view about "false" statements? Or that say, "Yes, but..."? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of the policy - I helped write some of it. You're not stating a particular example in the lead - it's weasel worded. Many of his statements were false. That type of statement requires qualification, such as "were described as false". Then you're placing the onus on the sources, not in Wikipedia voice. Morphh (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to part of your question, there are sources where Trump would disagree with that statement or does he not count as an opposing viewpoint? Here is one from today: http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/
Anyway, I don't care enough to get into a debate. I just found it surprising and while agreeing with the statement, I didn't think it should be stated like that. Morphh (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Morphh: I was actually supporting your point about "sticking out like a sore thumb". But you don't have to go against consensus by removing the phrase. Just add some language about the opposing POV. There's no consensus against adding, just against removing. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morphh makes a solid point. Since the article got (even more) massive readership after the election, several uninvolved readers have taken the trouble to comment on the talk page about this particular "sore thumb" wording. I take it as a sign that consensus may have changed and I'd welcome a new RfC about removing those famous two words "or false" from the lead. Strangely, the article body is worded more cautiously than the lead, with attribution to fact-checking organizations, third-party analysis of Trump's hyperbolic style and mention of Trump's rebuttals. — JFG talk 03:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If it's opinion pieces then we need to attribute. If it's news reports we don't. You do realize that whether something is "false" or not is not a matter of opinion, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not denying that Trump lied on the campaign trail. We're questioning whether this is notable enough for inclusion in the lead of his main bio. While it may have been a hot issue during the campaign (and even then the RfC attracted many "Strong oppose" comments), I believe it shouldn't be as prominent now. As Morphh said, Obama got "lie of the year", that's not in his bio, and Clinton was called a liar by none less than the FBI director, that's not in her bio either. And please don't lecture me about WP:OTHERCRAP… — JFG talk 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clinton was called a liar by none less than the FBI director - yeah, that's also false. Please keep in mind that BLP applies to talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Let me quote your favorite fact-checker on this:[5]

Wallace remarked, "After a long investigation, FBI director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true."
That’s not what Clinton heard Comey say, she responded. […] Clinton appears to have selective hearing. […]
Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified information whatsoever in her email, marked or unmarked. After the FBI investigation, including the interview with Clinton, Comey said she unequivocally did.
We rate her claim Pants on Fire.

Perhaps you suffer from selective memory? Enough said, back to the subject at hand please. — JFG talk 08:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you have there is that *Wallace* said that Comey said. Or something. What Comey actually said, as quoted there, which you left out: ""We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She lied to the public, not to the FBI. Comey confirmed that she did, ergo he called her a liar, on camera, under oath. Sorry you can't admit it. — JFG talk 10:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she did maybe she didn't (she didn't) but regardless it is simply not true that the FBI director "called her a liar" as you claim. "She lied to the public" is your own opinion, which you are of course entitled to have, but the fact that Comey did NOT call her a liar is a matter of record. See how this works? Comey says "she did not lie to the FBI". A partisan senator asks him "did she lie to the public?". Comey says "I'm not qualified to answer that". Right wing media runs with story "Comey calls Clinton a liar". Fake news sites and bitter BernieBros pick it up and spread it around internet. And then it becomes one of those things that "everyone knows". This is actually sort of frightening if you think about how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, perhaps the whole sentence should be trimmed or rephrased. Instead of:

Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests.

we could just say

Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention as the candidate triggered numerous controversies and protests.

Sounds less weaseling… What do you think? — JFG talk 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. We had an RfC about it. Your proposal flies in the face of the consensus established through that RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC started August 25, almost 3 months ago, an eternity in politics. Need I remind you WP:CCC? — JFG talk 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But here is the thing about false statements. The passage of time does not make them magically true. So there is really little point in revisiting this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are not listening. He lied, that's not in question. Should we point this out in the lead in Wikipedia's voice? That point deserves being re-opened now that the campaign is over. — JFG talk 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JFG. All politicians play fast and loose with the truth, that's a fact. But in no other article is this mentioned in the lede (and especially in such crude non-NPOV fashion). Time to revisit this. Athenean (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, maybe you should give yourself the task of going around to every single article on every single politician on Wikipedia and add "s/he lied" to it because, you know, "all politicians play fast and loose with the truth". Right. The thing is, that not every politician gets covered in so many sources as stating falsehoods. That hasn't changed. And it hasn't become less notable. It's one of the main characteristics of his campaign (so far...)Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I forgot, DJT is the only politician that "states falsehood". I stand corrected. Not. "The thing is, that not every politician gets covered in so many sources as stating falsehoods." Evidence? Btw, the campaign is over (it's not obvious from your above post). Athenean (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may sit down. Or not. Wait, weren't you running around right below yelling about "strawman"? As in, nobody here but you claimed that, quote, "DJT is the only politician that states falsehood". Did somebody else say that? Where? Diffs please. No? Why are you pretending otherwise then? And if you want "Evidence" for all the sources then... look. At. The. RfC. We. Already. Held. It's all in there. Which is why this proposal is just an attempt to re-litigate something which has already been decided after exhaustive discussion. And one more time, things don't stop being true just because some time passes. Falsehoods don't magically become true just because some time has passed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That you can think that readers will accept that you're fit to dictate NPOV policy on Trump is laughable. Doc talk 08:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could fellow editors kindly comment on my proposed text instead of bickering? — JFG talk 10:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. I think part of this comes down to Trump's over the top style. He exaggerates, embellishes, and talks in absolutes and feelings, which are easily falsifiable. He's also not a trained politician that says something without saying anything. Another part of the challenge is what Volunteer Marek describes - policy reflects the sources and the sources support the viewpoint. However, we're in such a situation where the opposing viewpoint says the media is dishonest and is openly campaigned for their opponent. The reliable sources contain a great deal of systemic bias on this particular issue. From a Trump supporter's pov, it's like saying the reliable sources, helping the Clinton campaign, say he made false statements. Even if untrue, when you have this type of situation, I think we need to treat the underlying data and sources as objective and thus qualify or balance the statement if you include it. Morphh (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. Just because he is going to be president doesn't mean we should rewrite history. This much-fought-over word "false" was based on solid sources - not opinion pieces, but factual reporting that found: yes, all politicians including Hillary stretch the truth, but Trump established a whole new paradigm by repeatedly saying so many things that were demonstrably, provably false. It's important to have that in the article. Well, I guess I would be OK with leaving it in the text but removing it from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, your proposed alternative completely misrepresents the consensus that was reached here, to wit:

Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false.

SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to discuss alternative wording given the rough consensus, particularly when even some of the Support votes included the condition "with attribution". In fact, if you read the RfC: Clarification notes of the closer, Sandstein states "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." Morphh (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem to consider alternatives, but JFG's proposal completely changes the meaning, so it is not an alternative but rather a negation of consensus. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no valid reason to revise the wording, attribute it, or remove it from the lead. We just went though an extensive discussion about this and arrived at a consensus. Those wishing to modify the consensus should be presenting new information, not the same weak arguments that failed to gain any traction the first time. To answer the OP's question "So we're just going to call the man out as a liar as a statement of fact in the lead?" directly: No, we're going to follow the preponderance of sources that have documented the fact that Trump has made many false statements. This is what we are required to do according to WP:NEUTRAL. - MrX 04:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is valid reason. As quoted above, the closer stated in the clarification that consensus was to include inline attribution. Also WP:BLP states "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" and it "must be written conservatively". So I think you're on weak ground to argue no changes, particularly no attribution when consensus and policy are to include it. I get there is plenty of sources and I didn't suggest it not be documented. While I don't think the weight is sufficient for the lead based on article content, the primary problem is the WikiVoice.

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

While I think a bigger change is appropriate, a minimal change such as this would help. It's still weasel, but at least it's shifting the statement to the sources. Morphh (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change since I think it better fits the consensus, still maintains the statement, and reduces the perceived bias of Wikivoice by referencing an attribution, albeit not directly. Morphh (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify why attribution is necessary beyond citing policy and consensus, the generalization of the sentence makes it subjective. The definition of "Many" is "a large number of" which is an opinion of relative size in relation to truthful statements. If we were citing a particular statement, it wouldn't be a problem. But since we're using subjective terminology and applying it various factors, it becomes an opinion about the body of his statements, which needs to attributed to a characterization. Morphh (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What "clarification" are you referring to? And given that we had an RfC on this, please don't make any changes without AT LEAST holding another one. There's clearly a lack of consensus for any changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(and for the record, I oppose holding another RfC for the very good reason, already articulated by others, that there's nothing new here. No new sources, no new developments, no new information. Absent that, it'd be just repeating the same discussion and a waste of time).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe another RFC is necessary since the first RFC stated that attribution was consensus as described by the closer "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." So no new information is needed, since it's clear in the RFC that the reasoning I stated in my clarification (which I added as a reference to the RFC opinion regarding my proposed addition above) was the consensus. But if we refuse to attribute, which is required by policy and described in the RFC consensus, then I'd be happy to hold another RFC on the matter. I made my change because I thought I was upholding the RFC consensus, not reversing it. My feeling is that editors failed to properly implement the consensus of the RFC based on the discussion and took it as an up or down vote even though the consensus wanted attribution added. Morphh (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC did not state that. Sandstein is just commenting, somewhere else apparently, about how he was reading some of the votes, not issuing any directive about what should be done, except for adopting the proposal itself. Here's the actual closure: "There is rough consensus to implement the proposal.". The proposal was to have the wording: ""Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false". This is what we have. There's nothing in the proposal, which was implemented per closure about weaseling the wording. Sorry, but your edits are borderline WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC discussion has a consensus for adding attribution. Sandstein's statement are in the RfC: Clarification when asked to clarify certain aspects of the RfC closure. The fact that the RFC gave approval for including the proposed statement doesn't change the discussion, which wasn't focus on attribution but inclusion. However, a consensus did conclude that it needed attribution and policy requires attribution in both NPOV and BLP. The subjective wording makes it an option statement. So, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I'll also note that the only weasel word in the statement is "Many" which was in the original proposal - adding the words "characterized as", which means "describe the distinctive nature or features of" is not weasel. Morphh (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has no such consensus and that's not what the closure of the RfC says. Look. There is a reason why RfCs are required to be worded precisely and why they are required to specify the actual proposal. It's so that exactly the kind of wiki-lawyering that you're engaging in does not sabotage consensus. There was an RfC about implementing a specific proposal. It was closed as "implement the proposal". That's it. Don't make stuff about what it was or wasn't.
As to Sandstein's later clarification, he says " Therefore, in my view, consensus for the proposal also extends to the footnotes." That's it. It has nothing to do with whether this sentence should be weaseled or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to disagree about if the discussion contains a consensus for including attribution. Is "Many", which is relative, a subjective word? Can we agree that "Many statements are false" is a judgement where others may hold a different view regarding the meaning and quantity in relation to true statements, be it more or less? Morphh (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may "disagree" to your heart's desire, provided you don't edit war and you don't snag article talk page discussions by NPOV editors. Otherwise, you may as well pack your toothbrush and head for AE. You're not a newbie around here. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly inappropriate, "false" should be removed from lede. I remind fellows editors we're writing an encyclopedia not a HuffPo blog post. Here [6] is an interesting analysis by Fareed Zakaria. Usable for attributed opinion but in which section? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, you said above that if it's opinion then we need to attribute. I understand that we can present examples and sources for false statements. My concern is we're not citing an example, but generalizing the body of Trump's statements. Is the judgement quantifying "many of his statements" (a large quantity relative to truth) a fact or an opinion? To me, this sentence is expressing an opinion about facts. Morphh (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, not an opinion, that he has made a large number of false statements, and therefore "many" false statements. The first word is appropriate and the sentence is an objective truth. Of 334 remarks examined by Politifact as of the 28th, 233 (or approximately 70%) of those statements are "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants on Fire". AndrewOne (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Fleeing "Trump's America"

Can we have a section on this here. Pretty please? About how all these big-time celebrities swore up and down that they'd leave the country if a hateful, racist, mysogynistic, xenophobic, anti-LGBTQ, horrendous SOB such as Trump were to be actually elected? And then, when it happened, how absolutely not one of them followed through? That each and every one of them not only lied, but tried to influence voters to do the same? Doc talk 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Doc talk 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support claims of leaving America was a fairly notable angle of the election program. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. It's absolutely undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is absurd. There is a ton of coverage about this in the media. Doc talk 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there really isn't, although I guess it depends on what you consider "the media", and even if, this article ain't the place for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You claiming "undue" isn't going to wash. You know this, right? C'mon, man... Doc talk 07:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything constructive to say or are you just going to keep typing "lol" as if that was some kind of brilliant insight? It's goofy gossip at best and it has no place in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Goofy gossip? This is why you lost the election. FYI... Doc talk 07:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, ok. Please read WP:TALK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's undue about it? Doc talk 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about you try to articulate why it should be included? You know, like with sources and stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're far too biased against Trump to have a NPOV discussion with. It's quite shameful that you've had the influence on this article that you've had. I hope it is diminished now that things have changed... Doc talk 07:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you get topic banned the last time you started up with the personal attacks? Again. Explain why this is so central to Trump's biography that it needs to be mentioned. Stop discussing editors. Discuss content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shaddap. Doc talk 07:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your chance to remove your offending comment. Feel free to remove this comment of mine right here (but not others) along with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am offended that you are accusing me of offending you. Doc talk 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Such a section would not be undue. There is plenty of coverage on the various celebs that said they would leave if Trump got elected [7] [8] [9] [10]. Athenean (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've pretty much scrapped the barrel there and exhausted every story that was written over the course of a year long plus campaign. Please stop pretending that this was some big story (outside of far right media, neo-Nazi websites and fake news websites). And please explain why is this somehow central to Donald Trump's life? Especially after you edit warred to minimize the mention of sexual assault allegations, which are in fact a notable subject? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wait, this is sort of funny. The CNN source is from the "Entertainment" section. And the first line is "it happens every presidential election". Ok ok, let me go to the Obama article... ... ... nope, nothing there about celebrities moving out of the country. George Bush. Nope, not there either. Millard Filmore. Oh wait, he got to be president cuz Taylor got pneumonia or something. Come on, can we please be serious here? This is trivial crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really must, file a proper WP:RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. Why would it be? Doc talk 07:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Care to describe how I've scraped "the bottom of the barrel"? Or is that just a colorful substitute for an argument? Can you find sources about celebs that said they would move out of the country if Obama won? That's right, didn't think so. You might also watch bandying about the "neo-Nazi" straq man argument, unless you can point out which of the sources I have presented are "neo-Nazi". Athenean (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You scraped the bottom of the barrel, by, like I said, picking out essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign. From borderline sources. I don't have to find any sources about celebs moving out if Obama won, because I don't wish to put that kind of stupid inane trivia into his article. And if you do a quick google search, it's easy to see that aside from the couple sources you mentioned above, it's pretty much all alt-right and neo-Nazi crap that keeps harping on this topic.
Seriously, if you really genuinely believe that this is something that is crucial to the biography of Donald Trump, start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating a bare assertion, no matter how colorful, does not make it true. How do you know I've picked out "essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign"? Oh look, another "bottom of the barrel" source [11]. Wait, is that the Washington Post? Btw RfC is for when several users reach a genuine deadlock, not for one lone user's WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections to relevant, sourced material. Athenean (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought up like moments ago. Just because you managed to jump in early does not mean you get to have your way. Here, let me state right here that I am challenging any content about this nonsense. Wait, is this article under discretionary sanctions? You cannot include this without clear consensus. That means an RfC. Oh look, Wikipedia policy. Or at the very least give it a bit of time so that others can comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more "scraping" [12]. Seriously if you wanted to argue against the addition of this material, you could try more convincing arguments. Attacking the sources as "neo-nazi" is just not going to cut it. Athenean (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... not a reliable source. Maybe not neo-Nazi, but definitely not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the "convincing argument" is simple. This is not something which is central to the life of Donald Trump.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Central" to the life of Donald Trump. Define "central". No limit on how many words you use. Doc talk 08:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wait, did you just say the Washington Post is not reliable? Did I really read Volunteer Marek saying the Washington Post is not reliable? Both the Post and the Times are reliable sources. Your bare assertion to the contrary is just that, a bare assertion. Btw, no one said it's central (see straw man), just that it's worthy of mention somewhere in the article. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited. I didn't say the Post wasn't reliable. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to misrepresent my statements. The Washington Times however is not reliable. And really, I get it, you know a latin phrase, you don't have to keep linking it it, doesn't magically make what you claim true just because it's in latin. It's not worthy of mention because it's "textbook trivia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well so far we've had a bare assertion, then we had a straw man, then WP:IDHT, then another bare assertion. What about the Washington Post? If it's significant enough for the WaPo to mention, why not for wikipedia. Answer, please. Athenean (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir! Right away sir! Seriously, can you drop the tone? So here is a reminder. Something being mentioned in the sources is a necessary (that's a Sine qua non) not a sufficient (that's a sinus quack quack) condition for inclusion. The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities. So tell you what, why don't you take the few sources that you have and go to the articles of the celebrities themselves and try to include this info... oh wait. Never mind, that would violate BLP. I'm sorry, can't do that either.
But you know what is actually important and could possibly be included in this article? Donald Trump's use of twitter. Tons of stories about that. In real reliable sources. And how his staff had to take it away from him in the last weeks of the campaign because he couldn't control himself and almost sabotaged his own campaign [13]. Yeah, there should definitely be something about Trump n' Twitter here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some more "scraping" [14]. This is one heck of a barrel. I keep scraping and scraping, and that bottom doesn't seem to end. It's the gift that keeps on giving, I tell ya. Regarding Twitter, believe it or not, I actually agree, however, you should be aware that there are sources state that his use of Twitter actually helped him win (as opposed to Hillary's highly professional PR staff). Not sure if you'd want that in the article though. And let's stay on subject, shall we? Athenean (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Trump supporters dare celebrities to pack their bags". Yeah. That's scrapping. But if we're gonna put things that Trump supporters do in to the article on Donald Trump, how about Trump Supporter Attacks Elderly Gay Man: "My President Says We Can Kill You"? If the celebrities stuff can be put in here, why can't that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean [15], when somebody replies to your comment, and you want to change it because you did something wrong, then the proper thing to do is to strike the part of your comment that was incorrect, rather than alter your comment. Otherwise it looks like I'm replying to something that is not there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So sad. First of all, it's "scraping", not "scrapping". "Scrapping" is what should be done with your influence on this article. Doc talk 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is an argument, not a discussion. I honestly don't think either of you is going to win this argument, nor can I imagine what such a win would look like. Suggest a suspension of said argument and waiting for comments from others. I'm leaning toward one average length sentence, maybe two, certainly not a section. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So attacks by Trump supporters can go in here too, right? There's plenty of sources for that as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Separate discussion. No linkage. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same principle. And dealing with both at the same time we'll make it harder for some editors to try and apply double standards and twist themselves into logical pretzels of hypocrisy (not anyone here, just you know, that always happens).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Yes, one sentence is what I was thinking for the celebs. There is no need for more, really. Athenean (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold off, per discretionary sanctions, on adding ANYTHING about this to the article, until more people have had a chance to comment. Better yet, please hold an RfC to determine consensus. The world is not going to end if we wait a bit (I hope).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as to hold off, disagree as to RfC. This does not rise to RfC-worthiness in my opinion, and it's way premature to decide we can't reach a consensus without a time-consuming RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course no rush. However I do note so far there are 4-5 users in favor and only 1 against. Athenean (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this doesn't deserve inclusion. It's one of those fluffy issues that come up in election campaigns etc, and quickly get forgotten. We shouldn't try to preserve it. Wikipedia should only record the things that people will still want to know in five years' time.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the celebs' histrionics this time around were so severe, that they received quite a bit of coverage. I think this is something people would be interested in in 4 years' time. Doubtless we will see the same then. Athenean (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is not a forum for electioneering.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia should only record the things that people will still want to know in five years' time" is a statement either: a) so "tongue-in-cheek" that it simply must support the proposal, or b) is so unbelievably inept that it is comical. Either way, it's amusing! Doc talk 09:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest this goes in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article or the United States presidential election, 2016 in general since they were trying to support Hillary as well. It seems notable for a campaign, not really for a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it go nowhere. What coverage this has is fluff. Quasi-humorous pieces by commentators who have run out of other things to talk about. As many of these sources actually point out (see The Hill for instance) such talk is common before every hotly contested presidential election. And they never follow through on their threats. It was just talk and everybody knew it. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support including it in nowhere. Where it belongs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if such a story made sense to include, how would you expect anyone to move out of the country within two weeks of the election? And if some celebs do move, I don't see that as worthy of inclusion either -- unless 5% of the country moves. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am partial to PackMecEng's suggestion, i.e.put this in a different article, but agree with MelanieN completely. The publicity stunts/rantings of celebrities, many of whom are so coked up they can't remember what they said any further than yesterday, have no place in a BLP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: An addendum to what I said previously, I think that this should be a point made on the Donald Trump Presidential Campaign page. I do however believe that this was an issue that gained a substantial amount of press, from the BBC, etc, that should be mentioned, at least in passing. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 02:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If, and I do mean if, we were to mention this, then we would have to say none of these celebrities ever left the country, for balance and perspective. It's sort of difficult to believe they all came up with the same idea on their own. Are there any sources that say their 'promises' to leave the country were just publicity stunts? Are there any sources that say they were approached with the idea of using their notoriety to sway public opinion and that none of them ever had any intentions of going anywhere thinking Trump would never actually win? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to say(?) that no sources will be found to say that celebrities were "approached with the idea of using their notiriety to sway public opinion and that none of them ever had any intentions of going anywhere". There are, however, multiple reliable sources that state (any said) celebrity's intention to leave the U.S., followed by multiple reliable sources that followed up on the fact that they did not. Whether they ever actually intended to leave either way should be left for the reader to decide. Duh duh daaaaaa!!! Doc talk 10:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was even in "Cosmo"[16]. Very mainstream... Doc talk 11:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How could anyone know if they aren't moving so soon? The election result was a surprise. How do you move to another country in two weeks? You need to select a country. You need obtain a work visa, which can be very difficult. If your spouse works, you need two work visas -- extremely difficult. You need to untangle yourself from current projects. You need to acquire a residence in that country. On top of this, many celebs that are listed as saying they'll leave were clearly joking: Cher said she'll move to Jupiter; Jon Stewart said to another planet; Natasha Lyonne said she'd move to a mental hospital; Spike Lee said he'd move to "the republic of Brooklyn." This is getting silly. Objective3000 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on. Here's to common sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on CNN.[17]. Huffington Post.[18] The CBC.[19] All the sources y'all like. And also sources y'all don't. It's not a "joke". It's not "trivial". It had major news coverage from all outlets. Doc talk 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose including the proposed content in any form. It's non-biographical trivia and speculation.- MrX 13:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I hear ya and I'm not unsympathetic. I have long struggled with the WP:DUE thing. On the one hand, it would appear to give us an objective measure of a bit of proposed content. But WP:DUE doesn't tell us how much RS is enough. And I have often seen very experienced editors who I respect applying editorial judgment that supersedes the RS, and that winning a durable consensus. That appears to be what is happening here. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you listed three sources. Yes CNN is a news network; but it was in the entertainment section and starts out by saying this happens every election. The Huffington Post cite was to their Canadian edition, and appears to be making light of the US election. CBC is Canadian and points out that the PM said this happens every election. Objective3000 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what I describe isn't what is happening here after all, although it does happen a lot. Perfectly good RS is overriden by editorial judgment. I note that MrX didn't say anything about the details of the RS as Objective3000 has done. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Objective3000, MrX, MelanieN, .Volunteer Marek, Jack Upland, Muboshgu -- oppose inclusion. My questions about whether there are sources that mention publicity stunts or whether the celeb's were approached, etc was rhetorical, aimed at demonstrating how contrived and frivolous these claims were. Anyway, we might even be helping Trump if we were to mention the rantings of celeb's, so if anyone is going to further entertain the idea of mentioning this fiasco it should be done so with one, or in the same, sentence covering protests. Presently the Presidential campaign, 2016 section is largely committed to the claims made by Trump's opposition, rather than the established facts regarding the campaign. e.g.There's only one sentence committed to the ideas Trump was, in fact, promoting during his campaign, while there are paragraphs committed to his opposition. Presently the section is begging for a POV tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that's the final nail in the celebrity's coffins. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds mighty hateful. Love trumps hate, you know. Doc talk 07:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we're sharing philosophical advice, remember things like "hate" are often in the eye of the beholder, and that three fingers point back. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!" Doc talk 08:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

In the list with children, one is missing: Barron Trump. Tbc (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Only notable children go there. Barron is not notable as he does not have a standalone article. He did have one, but it was redirected to Family of Donald Trump per a deletion discussion. Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sasha and Malia Obama also don't have their own articles, yet they are still listed on the Barack Obama infobox. In this case, I think it's appropriate to include Barron, along with the other children. Edge3 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It is well-known that Trump has 5 children, one of them a minor. By that standard, the latter deserves privacy (as was argued at the deletion discussion) but he is nevertheless notable enough to be mentioned. If we keep him out, we will face constant edit-warring to bring him back, and perhaps a battle to re-create an article for him. On the other hand, if we mention him and link to his section in the family article (via existing redirect), the infobox section about Trump's family will be complete and Wikipedia will be at peace. — JFG talk 21:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Looks like he was reinserted (not by me, although I agree). — JFG talk 01:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The US presidential election is determined by electoral votes. Nationwide popular vote is just as irrelevant as the number of counties won. It is an interesting trivia, but it should not be in the lead, it should be in the subsection. Putting it in the lead seems to create a bias towards Trump's legitimacy in winning the general election.

69.166.118.152 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nationwide popular vote does not determine the winner. It might give Hillary some comfort to know she had more people voting for her than for Trump, but she still lost the election and that's all that matters in the end. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The words "mandate" and "landslide" have both been used to characterize the election. The popular vote does not suggest illegitimacy to the Trump win. But, it does suggest the illegitimacy of claims of a mandate or landslide. Objective3000 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the election through the electoral college while losing the popular vote is a striking phenomenon, and has happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. By no means does it suggest illegitimacy of Trump's victory, and even if it did, that is not our role as an encyclopaedia to determine whether facts make results of elections legitimate. The simple truth that losing the popular vote while winning the election happened this year should by its inherent value elevate it to lede-status. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are both wrong. This is very relevant to the news of the day and will be for years to come, and if you actually live in the United States, you should realize it. This is the largest popular vote win for a candidate who lost the Electoral College in the history of the United States, so it certainly is not insignificant. Dustin (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For balance, I think it's OK to mention that Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide popular vote in the lead, but not OK to dwell on vote margins or historical precedents. The section about the general election covers it all. — JFG talk 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unknown how many illegal Mexicans voted in the general election. It is correct Hillary had millions more popular votes. It is not correct all of her votes are from American citizens. Indeed, millions of her votes could be from illegal Mexicans, considering how many illegal Mexicans there are in the US. Hillary winning the popular vote does not in any way, shape, or form make Donald's win any less legitimate because 1) the nationwide popular vote does not determine the winner and 2) it is unknown at this point how many of those votes came from illegal Mexicans. Donald Trump thinks millions of these votes are from illegals. http://time.com/4582868/donald-trump-people-illegally-voted-election/

69.166.118.152 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that millions of illegal immigrants voted, aside from certainly being false, are completely unsubstantiated. Dustin (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This disgusting edit should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could possibly include something about Donald Trump making another false bogus claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of sore losers, but it's rare to see a sore winner. See "Thin skinned" above. (And no, the disgusting edit should not be removed. It doesn't violate any WP policies as far as I can see.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, the sore winners, sore losers concept also came to mind. But, I disagree that this is not a WP vio. If the editor suggested that the accusation, with no evidence, be added as a claim by another, that would be one thing. But, he, himself, suggested that there was a crime committed by a racial group without an iota of evidence. And, he has added this claim on at least one other article. This smacks of racism. Objective3000 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best just to ignore'em after saying "no".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point. Thanks. Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is historic to lose the popular vote and win the presidency. However, it is also notable because trump is addressing it and claiming large scale voter fraud. This is historic for US politics, given how widespread the fraud would have to be.Casprings (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if this were to be included, it would be a negative for Trump as it would point out his penchant for making claims without evidence, at times based on racial/cultural aspects. But, I still don’t think it should be included as there are so many examples of his reactionary tweets. Simply can’t include them all. We need to see which ones gain traction. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have repeatedly made the assertion that Trump has included Mexican in his tweets about voter fraud. He did not, and illegal immigrant is not a nationality, race or ethnic group.173.66.18.9 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She did not "win" the popular vote. The popular vote was not a contest... there was nothing to "win" there. She got more votes than the other three notable candidates, it is true, but she did not obtain a majority; she obtained a plurality. I support mentioning this in the lead, that she achieved a plurality, but saying she "won" the popular vote is simply incorrect. Also, the presidential vote requires a majority. If, for example, Trump had obtained not a majority of the potential electoral vote, but instead simply a plurality, he would not have "won"... the electoral vote requires a majority. Marteau (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with this, putting Hillary's popular vote plurality in the forefront does NOT pertain to Donald Trump the person. Put it under a subcategory NOT in the introduction of Mr. Trump's Wikipedia article. Yeah and Illegals =/= Mexicans guys. User:Archer Rafferty —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The simple truth that [it] happened this year should by its inherent value elevate it to lede-status." ... "This is very relevant to the news of the day and will be for years to come, and ... you should realize it." ... "It is historic ... It is also notable."
I nonetheless call upon all citizens of English Wikipedia to unite in heeding WP:BALASP:
Balancing aspects. An article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its weight in the existing body of reliable sources on the subject [Trump]. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that are in the news. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous "Grab them by the pussy" thing used to be in the lead. Thankfully it no longer is. Hopefully BLP will be adhered to. Doc talk 10:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the election, which included Clinton winning the majority of the votes and Trump securing a majority in the electoral college, is highly notable and also of great historic importance (winning the presidency without winning the popular vote is very rare, losing the popular vote by such a margin is even more rare). Clearly Clinton winning the popular vote needs to be there. --Tataral (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support this logic. Hillary is also the first female candidate to lose a general election. Not in the lede. Hillary is the first candidate to win a major party's nomination while embattled with two FBI criminal investigations, with a third one completed while serving as FLOTUS. Not in the lede. Hillary is the first candidate to be soundly defeated in the general election, and not give a concession speech to her supporters the night of the election. Not in the lede. See the problem, here? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. There is a difference between notability and relevance to a specific article. In this particular article, at least at this time, although I suppose that could change, I cannot see any reason to mention in the lede the rather picky detail that Clinton got .2% more national popular vote than Trump. Particularly given the fact that one state Clinton carried, with 62%-33% support, California, has 10% of the population of the country, and those numbers themselves basically translate as 6% of the national vote to 3% of the national popular vote, mentioning that in the lede of this biography article, at least at this time, seems to be to be giving that one factoid grossly excessive weight. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your point re California. CA counts too. Indeed, what appears to be arbitrary lines drawn about the U.S. does have an effect. Objective3000 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In one single state, California, Hillary's margin of victory was 15 times greater than her national margin of victory. Yes, Californians count too, but they only count for the purposes of a national election as a single state. I regret to say that if there is at least to my eyes any real "arbitrariness" here, it is the arbitrary irrational insistence that, in an article which is a biography of rather older person who has won an election but has not even assumed office yet, material which might strike some as trivia regarding an election which is, even at this point, only a rather minor subject as a distinct matter in that individual's biography, is so important that it must be included in the lede. It honestly seems to me that the motivator here is more likely partisanship of those individuals who, for whatever reason, preferred Clinton over Trump and an attempt to use this biographical article as a bit of a WP:SOAPBOX to support their personal views about the "legitimacy" of a national election by raising a point which is at best of even minor importance in the matter of the election itself.
It is also probably worth noting that the popular vote is and always has been unto itself largely irrelevant in presidential elections, at least in part based on the long-established fact of the differing sizes of the populations of the states. So far as I can see the issue here is about a matter which is fundamentally not at all directly relevant to the factors determining the outcome of a election, which has so far as I can tell never been considered particularly important in any of the prior elections. The argument goes on that it is overwhelming important in this case that it must be mentioned in the lede of a person whose life (for better or worse) has had a huge number of significant events and issues which could also be argued to be significant enough for inclusion in the lede, possibly on more solid reasons. Such actions could be easily seen as indicating a lack of understanding of the factors which determine how US presidential elections are decided or less interest in those factors than in perhaps promoting some rather spurious claim of "victory" of a sort for the loser of that election. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, John Carter, there is a reason this nation is called the United States of America, not the American Federation (compare with elections in the Russian Federation which adopted a French-inspired Presidential nationwide popular vote with bicameral representation of federal territories similar to the US Congress). I wasn't aware the discrepancy was so large in California. It effectively sways the national vote tally all by itself. But look at the margin in DC: 92% for Clinton, quite an outlier there… — JFG talk 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she won over 2.5 million more votes seems extremely relevant to the election. I would suggest we just quantify it and state that. Something like "Trump won the EC, despite the fact Clinton received over 2.5 million more nationwide votes." Casprings (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That you advocate quantifying the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, is peculiar. Nonetheless, giving exact figures may be appropriate in the body of the article, but certainly not in the lead. Marteau (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the extant Bill Clinton article does not mention in the lede that he is the only 2-term president in history who did not receive a full 50% vote either time. That particular factoid has been discussed rather regularly for years regarding his presidency. That being the case, the argument for inclusion of this at least at this time less significant factoid in this case seems to be weak. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As everyone knows, Donald Trump's official Twitter account and Facebook account are used personally by him as official comunications to the public. I think the cited links should be mentioned there.

Thank you all. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ELNO#social.- MrX 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That will have to be revised if politicians continue to use them as primary communication channels. In the meantime I'm not opposed to some WP:IAR here, at least as to Facebook and Twitter, I don't know about his use of Instagram. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to propose changing the guideline, but they would need to make some strong arguments for ignoring WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINKFARM. Since these social media links would not improve the encyclopedia, IAR would not apply.- MrX 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the active use of them by the President elect and I, would argue, they are his main means of communication to the public would be reason to violate policy. However, might put up a rfc on this. Casprings (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's heavy usage of social media (especially Twitter) makes it permissible in this case, IMO. Edge3 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse issues here. This article is about Donald Trump, not about linking to his social media accounts one by one. Heavy or light use of these accounts still makes linking to all of them irrelevant. Obviously, a factoid can be added to the article that he uses social media frequently, if we have a reliable source that is. But what is the encyclopedic value of painstakingly linking all these accounts to this article? Do we need to spoon-feed the links to the reader for some reason? I can't see any benefits, although I can see clutter in the external links section if that proposal gets accepted. Dr. K. 15:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Equivalent to linking to his official website in the infobox, but far less prominent in External links. I differ with the words "painstakingly" and "spoon-feed". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still why the clutter? What encyclopedic value do these links have to offer to the reader? Providing a link to these accounts, even in the EL section, implicitly carries the message that the readers are incapable of finding them on their own. It looks like spoon-feeding the links to the readers to me. Supplying links for convenience to readers does not look encyclopedic, at least to me. Dr. K. 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasoning could apply to the website link. For that matter, everything in the article is something readers are capable of finding on their own, so you might as well argue that the article itself is superfluous. It would be different if he just used social media for the pointless casual chatter that most users use them for (I once saw a woman use Facebook to inform her friends that she had just gotten out of bed and was enjoying her first cup of coffee), but it appears that is not the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to list Trump's Facebook and Twitter pages. He's the first presidential candidate and now president-elect to use them as a means of communication, especially with such heavy use. Trump has already stated he plans to continue to use them to communicate with the American people. They are relevant, and in this instance, Mandruss has made an excellent point with WP:IAR . I don't see this as a violation of policy, but rather as the evolution of the policy as social media gains more prominence with this president. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Mandruss: Nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but here we are not talking about verification of an encyclopedic fact but rather about standalone links to social media accounts. Such links are devoid of WP:V value. The only thing they do is direct the reader to a twitter, facebook, etc. account., not for the purpose of verifying an encyclopedic fact but for the purpose to see the tweets, facebook activity, and so on. That's not needed and it is devoid of encyclopedic value. Dr. K. 16:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no fair with the Latin. If things in External links were needed for verifiability, they would be citations instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I try to polish my very limited Latin from time to time. :) In any case, yes, since we don't use ELs for verifiability and there is really no compelling reason to have them at the bottom of the article, that's why we have to limit their number per the ELMINOFFICIAL guideline. Dr. K. 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. I don't see Facebook and Twitter links on the website, let alone prominent ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok to include the official website and perhaps the Twitter link, since you mentioned that it does not exist in the official site. After that, Facebook, Instagram etc. are just the slippery-slope to clutter. Dr. K. 17:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to ride that slippery slope to Buzznet, Flixster, and Adult FriendFinder if he is shown to use them for substantive communication (or what a significant, non-fringe fraction of the population considers to be substantive per RS). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the President-elect's Twitter feed qualifies as "significant unique content". His notable Tweets are already covered by the press, and everything else is emphemera.- MrX 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mandruss, and others who support inclusion. The arguments against are weak and press coverage, which is largely against Trump, is not reliable. This is an encyclopedia, this is the President-elect's BLP, and his use of social media is relevant and the links to his accounts belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's official Twitter account and Facebook account are used personally by him as official communications to the public. He has stated that as President, he will continue to use these accounts to communicate with the American people. Should links to his accounts be included in this article's External links section? 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Support or Oppose

*Support per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. - The links at the bottom of the website's home page are not those proposed in this RfC. Upon clicking them one can see that they are for the transition team, not Trump the man (this is a bio of Trump the man). Has anyone shown that Trump does not use the personal accounts for substantive communications to the public? Not to my knowledge. Do reliable sources cover those communications to a significant degree? I believe they do. Regardless, I don't know that pictures of a bird and a lower-case f at the rarely-seen bottom of a page clear the prominence bar required by ELMINOFFICIAL. Awareness of those logos is far from widespread. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got an edit conflict posting nearly the exact thing: What needs to stop is these constant attacks against other editors. No one is trying to suppress Trump's views by not putting a link to his Twitter account. Although you wouldn't know it by reading some of the cites given on the political articles; not everything is a conspiracy. Yet another WP:AGF violation. Objective3000 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that many of the !votes you call conspiracy come with p&g basis, which you failed to provide in your own !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. I'm surprised Trump's characterization as "the social media candidate" is not yet mentioned in the article. — JFG talk 18:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as to Twitter, Oppose as to Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Reddit, VampireFreaks, NextDoor, Couchsurfing, WeeWorld, Plurk, et cetera. Because...Donald Trump's Twitter site is a subject of immense media and public interest, and if it's not in the External Links then it ought to be in the Infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as to Twitter and Facebook (and YouTube). For permanency; we can expect the Infobox Website data to get reverted back to the (outdated) campaign site from time to time. Oppose as to Instagram; see his current Biography page, "Meet The President Elect", President Elect Donald J. Trump, which shows Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube only. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose social media sites as External Links, except perhaps for Twitter as a second "official site". I would look favorably on proposals to change ELNO to be less restrictive in most regards, but as of now it applies. That said, I think that there is much good sourcing for an extensive section on Trump's social media presence, and it should include these accounts as citations to the primary sources, providing secondary sources citing each of those primary sources are given also. Potentially this could even end up including a table of social media links in that section, listing various data like number of followers or frequency of use. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ELNO is of course a guideline for which exceptions in unusual cases are explicitly permitted. Trump is by anyone's reckoning unusual ;) Marteau (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He uses them to communicate directly with tens of millions of people and often the mainstream press will pick up what he says it a tweet and make it front-page news. For example, his twitter account is probably the most important twitter account in the world right now and it should be included in the external links section. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose First, as a procedural matter, the RfC statement strikes me as non-neutral in tone, seeming to advocate rather clearly for one of the proposed options. Second, the term "official" as it is used in the second instance of the first sentence is clearly meaningless. If we are talking about Donald Trump as a private citizen, then what makes any kind of social media channel more or less "official" for a given individual? If we are talking about Donald Trump as the president-to-be, then no, it won't be an "official" channel in any sense, short of a formal administrative order; the fact that Trump is committed to continuing to use these accounts does not, in any legal or formal sense, make them official channels of the Office of the President, just because he occupies it while he is using them. Now, Trump could, theoretically, perhaps change that (though there are actual substantial reasons why that may be infeasible or even illegal to do so), but we have no reason to presume he will.
But those are all just incidental concerns about the way this issue has been framed. My actual substantive reason for opposing is that I don't think these links would represent useful supplemental resources for an encyclopedic summary of the topic, which I believe is a baseline evaluation that should apply to all of our content, even the outward-facing links. Clearly we will, with some frequency, be covering the content of Trump's tweets for at least the next four years--although, hopefully in a majority of cases, only after they have been covered reliable secondary sources. But just pointing at the accounts strikes me as an indiscriminate and context-less offering just for the sake of promoting everything the man has (or will) say on the account, without any encyclopedic framing. It will also open the door on validating social media accounts as de-facto acceptable links in other articles and in other contexts, an issue that I feel the broader community ought to weigh in on before greenlighting.
It's a tough call for me, because I generally view the external links section as a field for assisting our readers in reaching information that they may be interested in and which shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article for any of a number of reasons, but on the balance of factors, I think this particular variety of link should be avoided. At the very least, we absolutely should not list it as an "official" page for Donald Trump, as this could easily mislead the reader into thinking it is an official instrument of the head of state and government of the United States, which it absolutely is not. Snow let's rap 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I totally appreciate the slippery slope argument, it can also be contended that our beloved encyclopedia should evolve with the times and reflect current means of communication. In 2005 your identity was a web site, in 2015 it's a social media profile. I believe that infoboxes about notable persons should list one social media account of their subject; it's usually fairly obvious to determine which platform is the subject's main outlet. Maybe a debate on Template talk:Infobox person would be the better venue? — JFG talk 14:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be.  g@rycompugeek  talk 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm not sure the word evolve fits. Evolution generally moves toward more complex forms. I wouldn't characterize communication via tweet rants as evolving. An editor on one of the political pages suggests we stop using the "obsolete" NYTimes or WaPo as RS and start using far-left/right wing "news" sites since this is where younger people get their news. Evolution is slow partly because most changes fail, allowing the few that are actual improvements to thrive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any editor's individual judgment on the validity of "tweet rants", the issue of documenting the preferred public outlets representing notable people is a legitimate question for the wider Wikipedian community to ponder… I for one would consider Edward Snowden's Twitter feed as highly relevant to his biography and infobox. There has been a similar debate for inanimate objects such as space probes, although that's a bit more far-fetched. Regarding your discussion of RS, I think the current guidelines are fine. — JFG talk 14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowden as his situation allows little other communication. Trump has pretty much all communication mechanisms at his disposal as he sits in the bully pulpit. And, I'm fine with current RS guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Assuming that Donald Trump on Twitter is a red link, the bare minimum would be inclusion of the Twitter feed, which is part of his essential essence. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Twitter, due to the importance of this form communication from the subject of this article; weak support for the others. Deli nk (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based more or less on what Snow says above. The purpose of wikipedia is primarily to provide encyclopedic information, or information which would be of use to individuals seeking what is basically encyclopedic information, which is what so far as I can tell external links are supposed to provide. Few if any social networking sites provide such information, and much of the information that they might contain which might be useful to someone seeking encyclopedic information will probably be presented without clear context as to what is being said. If information on one of those sites is clearly of encyclopedic utility, I have very very little doubt that rather quickly some more reliable source will discuss it, and very possibly even quote in toto. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Summoned by bot. Given Trump's well-known and widely reported use of social media I think such links are both encyclopedic and necessary.

Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change section is POV

Recently deleted in the Climate change section were sourced statements saying that Trump and his campaign manager Ebell acknowledge climate change. Also deleted were sourced statements by Trump that there is "some connectivity" with humans and that he doubts humans are primarily responsible. Several attempts were made to be clear about this matter, but reverts and revisions to the contrary continue to occur. To get around the 1RR there has been a slow-mo edit war going on where a couple of editors insist on inserting the partisan trigger word of "denial" while they continue to remove clarifying statements. "Climate change denial" is a blunt and partisan term that means what it says, 'denial of climate change', which leads the reader to believe that Trump categorically denies any change at all. This has gone back and forth long enough, hence the POV tag in that section. There are plenty of sources that support Trump's statement of some human connectivity and that he acknowledges climate change. Yet there is a claim in edit history that any skepticism at all amounts to "denial", which is obviously POV and an opinion. (he never outright "denies" climate change and human connectivity) Also, there is no source that outright claims Ebell denies any climate change at all, which is how the current section reads. This is nonsense and beneath the purpose of Wikipedia. We need to restore the sourced statements that say Trump is skeptical and that he acknowledges climate change and some human connectivity so the readers are not mislead into thinking he denies everything categorically. This matter needs to be resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump is well-known for changing his mind on all sorts of subjects. He did call climate change a hoax, but he also later stated that some connectivity exists. The question is, are his numerous flip-flops in opinion notable enough to be mentioned in the article, considering that we're trying to edit it down anyway? I'm in favor of removing the phrase "repeatedly saying that global warming is a 'hoax'." After all, the scientific consensus is not just that climate change is real, but also that it is caused by humans. JasperTECH (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gwillhickers and JasperTECH. The section is POV and also seems undue. Trump seems aware that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it. That's all that needs to be there. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but were not going to revise or erase the historical facts every time the subject hedges his bets.- MrX 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. MrX, no one wants to "erase" the facts, and if Trump has indeed changed his mind this should be mentioned. Speaking of erased facts, this is what has just occurred in the section as mentioned above in the opening statement. Regardless of Trump's "hoax" claim, which was made in regards to the EPA, I'm sure he still is largely in agreement with this, so we need to clarify Trump's position and stay clear of these partisan POV labels (i.e."denial") that have slanted the account. This is Wikipedia. We don't use labels to make any point, we describe the facts and back them up with sources. This is fair to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the majority of reliable sources that say he's changed his mind from "global warming's a scam invented by the Chinese" to the very anti-environmental things he said this month to "it's real man"? You can't just psychoanalyze the man and say that extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence. The whiplash of his statements on this topic are so 1984-like that it would be censorship to just show the most flattering. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reliable source headlined "What’s Donald Trump’s position on climate change? All of them." Half a dozen different positions in fact. Where's your reliable source that knows for sure what his position is before he starts signing bills and orders? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not a good idea to label a talk page section with your pov. Regarding content, the "hoax" material has been reported on extensively and per WP:Weight should absolutely remain. The material about the EPA is a no-brainer and should certainly remain as the department will soon be under his dominion (which makes Myron Ebell relevant as well). The fact that he just recently stated he has an "open mind" carries very little weight as he still doesn't accept the scientific opinion on climate change --- Trump on Climate Change (November 23, 2016) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he still is largely in agreement with this. I'm trying to avoid responding to your snarks with snarks of my own; but you appear to know more about Trump's beliefs than he. Seriously, how do we know his positions when they are dramatically changing day-by-day? Objective3000 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been presented here, or anywhere, that changes the fact that Trump has clarified (or "changed" if you prefer) his opinion that some climate change has occurred and that he remains skeptical that humans are primarily the cause. This was outlined and source in the section but deleted all the while the POV and misleading weasel word "denial" has replaced any attempt to clarify matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified is a strange way to put claiming just about every possible Republican GW position at various locations in space-time. One of them being "global warming is an anachronistic Chinese scam". And even the least extreme of which is still kindof far from reality (though these myths are probably common unlike his extreme claim). When a man changes his position this much on different issues either the positions should all go in the article or none should. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Climate change denier" is a loaded term which can cover a lot of positions from outright denial that burning fossil fuels has any global influence on the climate to starry-eyed optimism that climbing CO2 is a positive development for the planet because it helps forests and crops grow faster. As some editors put it, we have no way to assess what is really in Trump's mind, if anything, about this complex subject, so we should keep as neutral as possible. It is ultimately pointless to dwell on Trump's inconsistencies because facts do not matter to people with an agenda on either side of the climate policy. Concretely, I think Gwillhickers' suggestions for clarification are better than the current pile-on. Trump does not deny human influence on the climate (except in jest at the Chinese) but he minimizes the extent of that influence and feels that fears of catastrophic change are overblown. He wants to promote all sources of energy and turn the USA into a net energy exporter; those are the key differences with his opponents which will likely inform his energy policies. — JFG talk 02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. And if the section is significantly shortened, then one sentence can be used to cover his position on climate change: "Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change." Since the scientific consensus includes both that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans, it won't matter how many times he's changed his opinion on it, because he's never claimed that humans play a major role in global warming. As the article on the scientific consensus on climate change states, "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans." JasperTECH (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JFG and JasperTech. indeed, "climate chage denier" is divisive, POV and misleading. Here is the content that was removed before the section was tagged.

Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the advocacy group the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as head of the future EPA transition team.[1] Ebell is not a climate scientist, and along with Trump, is a prominent skeptic that climate change is primarily caused by humans.[2] Trump acknowledges that climate change has occurred[3] and admits to "some connectivity" with human activity [4] but is sometimes referred to as a "climate change denier" anyway.[2]

  1. ^ Bravender, Robin. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition". Scientific American.
  2. ^ a b Greshko, Michael (November 9, 2016). "The Global Dangers of Trump's Climate Denial". National Geographic. Retrieved November 24, 2016.
  3. ^ "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  4. ^ "Trump admits to "some connectivity" with human activity". CNN. Retrieved November 26, 2016.

These statements are all true and all sourced and reflect the latest position of Trump and Ebell. I am open to any tweaking of the prose so long as the clarity remains intact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put that without putting the full range of half dozen positions. You can say he said the Chinese thing was a joke (frankly I think he doesn't believe it but wants the people who want to believe it believe that Trump believes it while other Trump sympathizers believe it's a joke or an ends justify the means dog whistle at the conspiracy theorist vote. But I am not a WP:reliable source). That is a slanted spin to make Trump look good when he has said at other times that humans have nothing to do with it, it's a hoax, or a waste of money. He has never agreed with the scientists either cause if he did he'd not say he this month that was going to get out of the Paris Treaty (and cut NASA's climate budget). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we should include sort of a timeline of changing opinion, not that it has in every respect, or we should just give the readers an obtuse representation of Trump's position and let them think he is a flat our and categorical "denier"? There is no reason why we should not be clear on matters. If you want to mention and clarify any changing opinion, you are welcome to add that along with any source(s), but trying to keep the latest account on Trump's position out of the article so you can just say he's a "denier" is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed text as is. Suggest adding something on his energy policy, which is closely connected to the climate change discussion, and ties in with his foreign policy ("get out of useless wars") and economic policy ("produce domestically to create value and reduce the country's debt") as well. For example: "Trump advocates domestic industrial support for both fossil and renewable energy sources in order to curb reliance on Middle-Eastern oil and possibly turn the USA into a net energy exporter." — JFG talk 10:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with mentioning more than one of Trump's statements, but I oppose removing climate change denial as a descriptor, based on WP:PSCI and the predominant definitions of climate change denial. Some forms of climate change denial include 1. Denying that the planet is warming at all, 2. Denying that humans have any contribution, 3. Denying that either of these things are fact, e.g. suggesting they are unknown or conjecture. Trump's statements sometimes avoid the first two, but never avoid all three. Someone who said about Apollo 11 that the Moon had 'some involvement. Some, something. It depends on how much' is denying that it was a historical event that clearly happened, even if they aren't saying outright it didn't happen. Climate change denier is the prefered term among the scientific community for people who cast unwarranted doubt in various ways on anthropogenic global warming. Gwillhickers' attempt to label it a 'partisan trigger word' is itself partisan. WP:PSCI says The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. Not using the term preferred by climate scientists that is clearest about the pseudoscience looks like violation of this policy.

I strongly oppose Gwillhickers' attempt to rename Trump's views 'skepticism': skepticism implies reasoned doubt over a fact there is no reason to doubt. We now have direct observational evidence that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the planet and that they were produced by humans. Saying you have 'an open mind' about what we can see with our eyes and that 'it depends on how much' connection there is between humans and global warming is not skepticism, it is denial. Madshurtie (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, there we go! I was trying to think of a proper term to put in the article, and anthropogenic global warming is perfect. Some really good points about the climate change denial article there, too. I didn't realize that it was such an all-encompassing term. It looks like it'll be consistent with policy to leave it as "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" or to call it "climate change denial", or, for more clarity, using the term you described above: anthropogenic global warming (even though they're synonymous). Basically, whichever of these options other editors seem to agree most on. I also strongly oppose making the article say anything about Trump being "skeptical" of climate change. JasperTECH (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JasperTech: Man-made global warming is equally good if you want a more plain English alternative. AGW denial and man-made global warming denial are more specific (better really) terms, but climate change denial encompasses those in widespread usage, and has value as a more common label as per WP:UCRN. I think using all of the above in different sentences, as the section currently does is fine. Climate change skepticism is a common but incorrect term. Madshurtie (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that Climate change skepticism redirects to Climate change denial, because that's what it is, the word "skepticism" just being Orwellian PR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view, but it can also be said that the obtuse term of "denial" is Orwellian PR. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, its mainstream among the climate science community, and Wikipedia's own consensus on the respective article. Madshurtie (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many mainstream scientists and sources use the term skeptic, or skepticism, including Scientific American, The Washington Times, USA Today, LA Times, Washington Post, FactCheck.org. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion about global warming — JFG talk 15:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming discussion

We can haggle all we like about which is the more appropriate term to use, at one point we used both, but the fact remains, Trump and Ebell have both acknowledged that climate change has occurred and both have qualified their positions and maintain that human activity is marginal compared to the natural forces of nature, the likes of which have caused the earth to warm time and again, long before the industrial revolution. Having doubts as to the degree of human causes is not denial in the manner some would have us believe. Again 'climate change denial' implies that Trump categorically denies any and all warming, which is not the case. Calling this "denial" is one sided and rank POV pushing.
Also the "97% consensus", was the result of a survey first conducted by Kendall Zimmerman, a masters student and was based on a two question online survey and conveniently did not include the consensus of many known skeptical scientists. Cherry picking the data. Out of the scientists surveyed only 5% of them were climate scientists. Moreover, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset, and of the papers they submitted, 25% of them took no position on anthropogenic causes of warming. Further, the papers that were chosen conveniently excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of the degree of anthropogenic causes. The various claims made in these academic papers frequently differed from one another as well. The idea that 97% of scientists are in lock step with one another is a spurious claim, often the result of peer pressure, not peer review. Many of these scientists maintain that the degree of anthropogenic global warming doesn't merit any changes in public policy.[1] not represented in this 97% claim are 31,000 scientists who say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans are primarily the cause global warming.[2] Another study maintains that an estimated 40% of scientists doubt man is the primary cause of climate change.[3] In yet another account another ignored peer-reviewed survey found the majority of scientists are skeptical of the global warming crisis, claiming the data is cherry picked and the studies are biased from the start.[4] Hence Trump's claim of "politicized science". In yet another study by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, "a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science. Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC".[5]
You can debate that of course and also engage in a reliable source war if you like, but this matter is hardly carved in stone and too many variables remain unresolved, so we must present this advent in a neutral fashion and stay away from loaded and misleading POV terms, esp where controversial issues are concerned.

In any case I think we can all agree that Trump's position needs to be represented accurately. The last sentence in the Climate change section doesn't do this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ National Review
  2. ^ OSS Foundation
  3. ^ National Association of Scholars
  4. ^ Forbes
  5. ^ PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency
At this point, having doubts whether humans are warming the planet is denial, not least because our satellites can see less heat being radiated into space solely in the spectra greenhouse gases absorb—the major atmospheric gas of which has isotope markers specifically of fossil fuel origin. When we can directly see the process in action, doubting whether humans are warming the planet becomes like doubting the existence of continental plates or Mr. Donald Trump. Almost everything Gwillhickers has said about the 97% consensus is wrong, which he would find out if he looked at the range of research producing similar figures, instead of only investigating one individual poll by looking at op-eds and unreliable sources. It is telling that I cited my claims about radiation and isotopes to the peer-reviewed literature while he cites his to junk. the natural forces of nature, the likes of which have caused the earth to warm time and again, long before the industrial revolution. This is textbook climate denial by Gwillhickers, since none of the sufficient natural forces of nature are currently exerting warming effects in the data. I see no acceptable arguments here for rejecting the mainstream use among scientists and Wikipedia of the term climate change denial. Madshurtie (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, the source Gwillhickers cites to produce 31,000 scientists who reject AGW is actually pointing out that almost all of these scientists aren't climate scientists and that they don't even need to be professionals to sign it, they just need to have a B.S. degree. In reality, almost no scientists actually publish peer-reviewed research rejecting AGW these days, and the larger minority who have denial viewpoints almost entirely push their views in op-eds and other public environments. Madshurtie (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Madshurtie, as I said, you can engage in a debate and selectively snipe at the sources, I cited five, including the one that says that out of the 97% figure, only five percent were climate scientists and their opinions vary. And it's only an opinion that any skepticism amounts to "denial". Many disagree with such an obtuse and unclear claim, and rightly so. Some people rely on labels. e.g. Spanking a child is referred to as "child beating" by some. Same obtuse and misleading terminology. We need to be clear on matters and not try to wooo the reader into an opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I initially didn't bother selectively sniping at anything: none of the sources you cited had any scientific authority. I just found it amusing that one of them directly critiqued what you were citing it for (and happens to think AGW is fact). I also didn't bother debating any of those points because almost all of them are flatly contradicted by the range of research saying the opposite. Of course, producing a body of text designed to create doubt over AGW and trying to head off observations that it's mostly rubbish by saying you can debate that of course and also engage in a reliable source war if you like is a bit cheap.
Global warming and AGW are directly observed, so any 'skepticism' about those two facts is now denial. There is no opinion. Warranted skepticism is possible about some aspects of climate science research but not about whether the planet is warming or whether humans are the primary cause. WP:PSCI says we should indeed wooo the reader into an opinion—the opinion that climate change denial is pseudoscience and considered so by the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community. Madshurtie (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has been denying climate change for years. In a broad-based interview last Tuesday, he said he had an open mind. Then immediately added that the hottest days were in 1898, an argument used by climate change deniers. He is well-known for shifting positions, sometimes within hours. Frankly, I'm not sure we know for certain most of his positions since so many seem to be radically changing. I think we need to go with what he has repeatedly said during the campaign, until he actually makes a prepared statement on the subject. Until then, the current text appears to match what he has been saying throughout the campaign and looks neutral to me. Objective3000 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Trump could have flat out denied any and all global warming from 'day one', but his recent position and statements doesn't reflect this. If there are sources that 'explain' (not just make general and sweeping claims) how Trump originally and categorically denied any and all global warming, we should say that. However, we have sources, good ones, that explain Trump's latest positions so we need to be clear about that also. Is it your intention to say, 'Once upon a time Trump denied global warming -- period', while you ignore his latest positions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate on global warming

Gents, let's not turn this discussion into a debate on global warming itself; Wikipedia has seen enough of those, and we won't ever settle it. The point debated here is how to describe Trump's positions and policies on climate and energy, giving due weight to his current stance as well as his hesitations and unfounded claims on the issue. This is hardly the only domain where he made bolsterous claims during the campaign and then refined those into a pragmatic and workable policy (see immigration, NATO, abortion, The Wall™, Obamacare, etc.). Wikipedia should not get hysterical about his shocking pronouncements, just report them alongside his actual deeds when they become clearer. — JFG talk 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I realized it was getting off topic, although admittedly an attempt to create doubt about whether global warming and AGW are fact is an attempt to create doubt over whether we should use the term denial. We, and the bulk of climate scientists, describe doubt about GW and AGW as denial because that's what you call doubting directly observed facts accepted by the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madshurtie (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even discussing global warming in this page? The matter is not the factual nature of the event, the so-called scientific consensus, or statistics. We should simply summarize what Trump has stated on the topic at various times, probably along with the time when he did so. If Trump makes a silly claim about World War II, that does not mean we have to replicate the article on World War II here. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an outgrowth of Gwillhickers saying we shouldn't refer to Trump's beliefs as climate change denial, instead we should call them skepticism. That started a discussion about what terms were appropriate, and since part of the reason for the term 'climate change denial' is that doubting GW and AGW requires denying facts, it degenerated into an argument over whether that premise is correct. I think I'll collapse the stuff about the truth of global warming to try to keep the section on topic. Madshurtie (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More pointless 'discussion' about GW

The "bulk" of scientists used to say there were four bodily humors. This was the "overwhelming consensus" for hundreds of years. Good thing science is not truly based on the consensus of the majority of scientists, but rather on the questioning of their methods. Doc talk 12:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc9871: Yes, scientists revise their theories when more information comes in (though whether you'd call believers in humors 'scientists' I'm not sure sure). Just like they did in the 20th C. with special relativity, plate tectonics, and, um, global warming. Fortunately we don't just have to point to the overwhelming consensus, we can point to the direct observations of greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the planet and the gasses' fossil fuel origin. Madshurtie (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If one didn't believe in the bodily humors when it was the general scientifically accepted fact, one would have been considered anything but a scientist, indeed. They would have been a "heretic" really. There's no correlation to the modern-day scientific community. My mistake. Doc talk 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the scientific revolution happened, it wasn't long until the theory of humors was abandoned, so I'm not sure scientists even existed in humoral medicine. It was never a fact, though it might have been generally accepted among physicians. Global warming is a fact, and it's overwhelmingly accepted by climate scientists. Madshurtie (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate about POV terms

{The issue of POV terms need to be resolved and the discussion touches on global warming from time to time. Please don't hide the discussion until the matter is resolved.)

"Denial" grossly misrepresents the wide variety of opinion out there. No one 'disputes the facts' i.e.warming and human caused CO2 which is largely scrubbed out of the air. If it wasn't sun light would have dimmed and we would have suffocated long ago. What's at issue is if man made CO2 is the sole reason behind warming, as compared to other natural forces, (i.e.underwater volcanoes in the arctic, natural geologic warming of the surface, which varies from century to century, and other natural shifts in weather, etc).
The 'bulk of scientists' are questionably represented given the political inclinations involved and the many scientists who are routinely ignored by a largely partisan media. Remember Gore's opening statement in his 'An Inconvenient Truth' presentation? -- "Hi, I used to be the next president of the United States." -- That right off set the political tone and partisan division that has wooed the naive and infested the debate over GW. Since then "denial" has proven to be a one sided and obtuse term that doesn't address the wide variety of opinion out there. "Denial" is an unclear, partisan and POV term, and as such should be used in its proper context, i.e. "Sometimes referred to as Climate change denial". Once again, when this term is used by itself and out of context it becomes a grossly misleading and divisive claim and does a disservice to those readers who would like a more specific account on matters. Again, we need to be clear on matters and accurately describe Trump's position. Virtually none of Trump's supporters use the term, only his opponents do. No? Name one prominent Trump supporter who has described Trump with such a weasel worded term. It's no coincidence that virtually all Republicans and Democrats don't use/use the term respectively. "Politicized science". As such, we need to write the account clearly, which is fair to all. "Denial" is a narrow term, while skepticism addresses the wide variety of opinion out there which is not all black and white. Referring to 'any' form of skepticism as "denial" is POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial is not a narrow term, it is used in a range of ways. It does encompasses people who doubt whether the planet is warming or whether this is because of human activity. Skepticism does not encompass these views, because they are not skeptical views. warming and human caused CO2 which is largely scrubbed out of the air. If it wasn't sun light would have dimmed and we would have suffocated long ago. What's at issue is if man made CO2 is the sole reason behind warming, as compared to other natural forces I thought you just said this is a debate about POV terms. Madshurtie (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it you are making the same mistake you made with regard to the infobox image. You are attempting to engage in wide-reaching meta discussion on an article talk page. You are debating questions that are much larger than Donald Trump. While I wouldn't suggest that such discussion is out-of-place at Wikipedia, my suggestion is to find a more suitable venue for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Well at least you say "As I see it". Thanx. I'm sorry if the discussion isn't as simple and black and white as you'd like it. Please address the discussion, or start a new section and make your own statement. I asked if it was anyone's intention to simply say, 'Once upon a time Trump "denied" global waring -- period.' Instead of side stepping questions and hiding the discussion, this needs to be resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extended wrong-venue discussion will be "hidden", that's how it works despite your spurious accusations of bad faith. No one is required to discuss anything with you anywhere, let alone in the wrong venue, and my suggestion to others would be to disengage and ignore you. That's what I'm doing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are free to ignore what you like. Please don't expect everyone else will do the same and hide the discussion (not that you resorted to that this time). Once again, the topic can get involved. When it does, you can always ignore it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Is it your intention to say in so many words, 'Once upon a time Trump denied global warming -- period', while we ignore his latest positions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing the section doesn't just say he once denied the planet is warming. Even now, Trump hasn't given a clear acceptance of the facts the planet is warming or that humans are the only major cause. This is the meaning of the phrase 'climate change denial' as it is widely used on Wikipedia and among scientists. It doesn't matter what terms politicians use, because it is a matter of scientific concern. Madshurtie (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, scientific opinions varies, which has typically been ignored by most media accounts. It seems the greater bulk of sources/citations used in the entire article are media accounts. Your various blanket rebuttals lack any comprehensive explanation.
In any case, the section is not clear about Trump's position. His statements about "some connectivity" and "politicized science" have been repeatedly deleted, while the section currently says -- "Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute advocacy group, as head of the future EPA transition team. Ebell has no scientific qualifications, and is well-known for denying that Earth is warming or that humans are responsible." Once again, Trump (and Ebell) are grossly misrepresented in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking steps towards resolution

If there are no objections I would like to restore statements that cover Trump's acknowledgement of some connectivity and his opinion that much of the science is politicized. Both of these claims got national attention and were covered by numerous reliable sources that are used in this article elsewhere, including CNN, Politico, The Guardian, Huffington Post, et al. (1, 2) That would be at least a first step in trying to resolve the overall issue of neutrality in the Climate change section. Once we get over that hurdle then we need to finally strike a compromise about using 'both' the terms "denial" and "skepticism". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and I would suggest making your proposed edits directly in the #Working draft section below. No point working on a long version when it will be trimmed soon. And with brevity comes clarity! — JFG talk 17:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any change in position. After years of denial, he answered a question, off-the-cuff, that he would keep an open mind. But, the next day, Preibus said: as far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk, but he'll have an open mind and listen to people. I think that’s what he’s saying. FoxNews What's in the news now is Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’.TheGuardian Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change to include that he once called it a hoax invented by the Chinese, but I don't believe that mentioning his statement about "some connectivity" to be due weight. If people visit the linked article about the "scientific consensus on climate change", they will clearly see that it includes both that it is real and that it is caused by humans. It seems undue weight to mention one of his flip flops, considering that he has seemingly reverted to his previous position now (or at least, it looks like he'll be acting as if humans are not responsible). Also, Trump himself didn't say anything about politicized science—that was one of his advisors who talked about defunding NASA's Earth Science program. JasperTECH (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JFG. Trump's positions, whether he flip flopped or not, are significant, got national attention, were reported by major sources and reflect his latest position. However, I wouldn't be basing any decision on whether to add anything simply on the basis that we might trim something later. Again, nothing should be removed for the sake of page length alone, and main articles and sub-articles commonly have a fair amount of informational overlap. Again, this is good and ties the narrative of the two articles together. A good number of FA presidential and other biographies of important people exceed pagelength guidelines, as mentioned above. The Climate change section is very short to begin with and adding these items would not effect its length in any capacity to speak of. JasperTech, undue weight in this case becomes an issue if we carry on at length about these things. Again, these positions are significant and qualify Trump's position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit summarizing political positions

Just thought I'd start a new section in case people have anything to say about this recent edit I made. The climate change topic above is sort of related, but this is for a larger discussion about other things that have been changed or removed as well. JasperTECH (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a 10% reduction in rps in one fell swoop? I hereby award you the Trimming Barnstar of Brilliant Prose! — JFG talk 01:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, wow indeed. If we want to make major reductions in article size it needs to be done one step at a time. Doing so in the middle of a discussion is inappropriate. Making such a major deletion for the sake of page length goes against guidelines. Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length. Also, the POV template is not to be removed until the issue in question has been resolved. The major deletion comes off as an ulterior attempt to avoid that process. it's also not considerate to the many editors who gave their time and effort to the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: No content was lost: everything is developed in excruciating detail in the myriad other articles about Trump's business, campaign, hair (thank God that one got deleted) and sex life. Besides, page history is your friend; feel free to restore what you think was unduly trimmed. However, please bear in mind that we have prior consensus that the Donald Trump article was too long, laden as it was with undue factoids and convoluted language from campaign times. In other words we all want to make it more encyclopedic, and that starts with sharper prose. I sincerely hope that most readers don't come to Wikipedia to argue ad nauseam over every tweet of The Donald and every over-reaction from well-meaning pundits. — JFG talk 02:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry Gwillhickers, I wasn't aware of any guidelines saying that edits should be done in smaller portions, so please let me know if there are guidelines I missed. I decided to do it one swoop to make the section consistent instead of having full, lengthy segments for some political positions and summarized versions for others. I wish you would have stated what exactly was wrong with the edit instead of simply undoing the entire thing. I didn't just make a "major deletion," but re-wrote large portions of the section to condense the policy positions.
Please remember to assume good faith—I had no ulterior motives in editing the section down, nor what I trying to disrupt the ongoing conversation. The political positions simply have a lot of undue weight, and I was hoping to improve the article by shortening them. Take a look at the political positions in the Hillary Clinton article, for instance.
The POV template was removed because the climate section had been edited down to one sentence saying he disagreed with the scientific consensus of climate change. To me, it didn't seem there would be any debate about that, and new material could be reinstated if people felt it should be expanded. However, a POV-inline template could have certainly been added to the shortened version instead of reverting the whole edit.
The reason I felt free to do a major trimming of the section in this article is because there is a already a massive article about the political positions of Donald Trump. People's efforts to improve the political section in this article were not in vain, but can still be used to improve the main political positions article as well.
Would you mind self-reverting your recent removal of the edit I made? There's no doubt this section needs to be shortened, and if you or any editors see specific problems with content I removed or shortened, feel free to improve it by readding material from before the deletion, adding tags, or discussing it here. Thanks! JasperTECH (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines involved were mentioned and linked to. Regarding 'one step at a time', again this should be done for reasons mentioned, esp out of consideration to other contributors. As for coverage in other articles, yes, there are other articles, but the main article should have a comprehensive and summary representation of the major topics and issues, while the sub articles can cover these things in greater depth. Main articles and sub articles commonly have a healthy amount of informational overlap, which is good. Just because something is mentioned in a sub article doesn't mean we have to say next to nothing about that topic in the main article. In reducing the climate change topic to a sentence or two, we still had the same problem, where Trump's position was not fairly and clearly represented. Last, I said the major deletion came off as an attempt to skirt the POV resolution and subsequent tag removal. Had I thought you made the deletion for this purpose explicitly I would have said so. I've no qualms about reducing some of the text, but given the said situations this should be done mindfully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: I'm not sure why you hid the above discussion under a collapsing template, but I'm going to undo that edit because I feel it is still relevant for future editors.

Some of the concerns you expressed can be resolved by having an easy-to-compare version of the text before and after the edit. Since I have rearranged large portions of text in order of (what I perceive to be) most notability to least notability, the original text has also been rearranged to easily compare the two versions. Additionally, I've made a few changes that are different from the original edit.

It can be very difficult to compare edits using the diff tool, so hopefully the table below will make it easier.

Table comparing text before and after

File:Donald Trump and Mike Pence RNC July 2016.jpg

Trump has described his political leanings and positions in various ways over time.[1][2][3] Politico has described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory".[3] He has listed several different party affiliations over the years[3][4] and has also run as a Reform Party candidate.[4] The positions that he has revised or reversed include stances on progressive taxation, abortion, and government involvement in health care.[3]

Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist".[5][6] Trump has described his political positions in various and often contradictory ways over time.[1][7] Trump stated, "I have evolved on many issues. There are some issues that are very much the same, I've been constant on many issues. But I have evolved on certain issues."[8] PolitiFact.com wrote that it is difficult to determine Trump's stance on issues, given his frequent changes in position and "his penchant for using confusing, vague and even contradictory language".[9] PolitiFact.com counted at least 17 times when Trump said something and then denied having said it.[10]

Economic issues

Trump's campaign tax plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate to 15%, concurrent with the elimination of various business loopholes and deductions.[11] Personal income taxes would also be reduced; the top rate would be reduced from 39.6% to 25%, a large "zero bracket" would be created, and the alternative minimum tax would be eliminated, as would the estate tax (which currently applies to individual estates over $5.45 million or $10.9 million per married couple).[12] Under Trump's economic plan, families with head-of-household filing status making between $20,000 and $200,000, including many single parents, would pay more in taxes than under current tax law, due to Trump's elimination of some deductions and exemptions.[13][14] Several reports assess that the economy would be "diminished" by heavy job losses and recession under Trump's economic policies,[15][16][17] with a large number of economists, including 19 of 32 living Nobel laureates, warning against his economic policies.[18][19] Two analyses find that Trump's economic plan will have mixed results; one analysis finds that Trump's plan would create short-term economic gains but major long-term economic losses in terms of jobs,[20] and another analysis finds that the plan will create 2.2 million jobs, a major increase in capital stock and some wage growth, but by increasing federal debt by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion.[21]

Trump's comments about the minimum wage have been inconsistent:[22][23][24] he has said that a low minimum wage is good;[25] that the minimum wage should not be raised;[26][27][28] that the minimum wage should be raised;[29][30] that he would like an increase, but the states should do the increasing;[31][32] that he is against any federal minimum wage floor;[33] and that he is in favor of a $10 federal minimum wage, but "let the states make the deal".[34]

Trump identifies as a "free trader", but says that trade must be "reasonably fair", and has described supporters of international trade deals that are good for other countries but not good for the United States as "blood suckers".[35][36][37] He has often been referred to as "protectionist".[38][39][40][41][42] He says NAFTA has been the "worst trade deal in history", and would as president either renegotiate or break the NAFTA agreement.[43][44] He opposes the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).[45] Trump proposes to raise tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States by 45%, and has raised the idea of placing 35% tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States.[46][47] Trump has called the World Trade Organization (WTO) a "disaster",[48] and favors renegotiating or leaving the WTO unless it allows his proposed tariff increases.[49]

Immigration

Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[50][51] Trump vows to build a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for.[52][53] Trump would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S., stating "Day 1 of my presidency, [illegal immigrants] are getting out and getting out fast."[54] Trump opposes birthright citizenship.[55]

In late August 2016, Trump hinted he might soften his position calling for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants.[56][57] On August 31, 2016, he made a visit to Mexico and met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, saying he wanted to build relations with the country.[58] However, in a major speech later that night, Trump laid out a 10-point plan reaffirming his hardline positions, including building a wall along the Mexican border to be paid for by Mexico, potentially deporting "anyone who has entered the United States illegally", denying legal status to such people unless they leave the country and apply for re-entry, and creating a deportation task force.[59] He said the focus of the task force would be criminals, those who have overstayed their visas, and other "security threats".[60]

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his original proposal in 2015 for a "total and complete" temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[61][62][63] Trump later changed his position in 2016 by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[64][65][66][67][68] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[69]

Climate change

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[70][71] repeatedly saying that global warming is a "hoax".[72][73] Trump has called the EPA a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[74] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[75] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[76] and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries, saying that it treats the United States unfairly and gives favorable treatment to countries like China.[77] However, after winning the presidency, Trump said he has an "open mind" towards the Paris agreement, while continuing to deny that man-made global warming is fact.[78]

Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute advocacy group, as head of the future EPA transition team. Ebell has no scientific qualifications, and is well-known for denying that Earth is warming or that humans are responsible.[79][80]

Education

Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools.[81] He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools,[82] and has called Common Core "a disaster" that must be ended.[83] He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education.[84]

Foreign policy

Trump has been described as non-interventionist[85][86] and nationalist.[87] Trump has repeatedly stated that he supports "America First" foreign policy, though he is not linked to the historical isolationist America First Party (1944) or the defunct paleoconservative America First Party (2002).[88] He supports increasing United States military defense spending,[87] but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[89] He says America should look inward, stop "nation building", and re-orient its resources toward domestic needs.[86] He questions whether he, as president, would automatically extend security guarantees to NATO members,[90] and suggests that he might leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance.[91] Trump has called for Japan to pay for the costs of American troops stationed there and that it might need to develop nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from North Korea.[45][92]

File:Trump in Ames (24490966335).jpg

In order to confront ISIS, Trump in 2015 called for seizing the oil in ISIS occupied areas, using U.S. air power and ground troops.[93] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][94][95] a position he retracted.[96] He has since argued that regional allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight.[97] He also believes that oil fields in ISIS-controlled areas should be bombed.[97] He supports the use of waterboarding, a form of torture, and has said he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse".[98][99] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[100] Regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Trump has stated the importance of being a neutral party during potential negotiations, while also having stated that he is "a big fan of Israel."[101] He supports Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.[102]

During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he opposed the Iraq War even before it was launched, although his public position had been unclear at the time.[103][104] In 2002, when asked whether he supported invading Iraq, Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so" and added "I wish the first time it was done correctly" in reference to the Gulf War of 1990–1991.[103][105]

Shortly before the 2003 invasion, he said: "Well, [Bush's] either got to do something—or not do something, perhaps. […] And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."[106][107]

Trump publicly referred to the war as a "mess" within a week after it began, and by 2004 he said he was opposed to it.[105] Since 2004, he has repeatedly criticized the war, especially during the primary debates with Jeb Bush.[108][109]

Trump has at times during his presidential campaign stated that the Afghanistan War was a mistake, and at other times stated that it was necessary.[110] He supports keeping a limited number of United States troops there.[110] Trump was a strong supporter of the 2011 military intervention in Libya at the time.[111][112] He has since then reversed his position several times, saying finally in June 2016 that he would have supported "surgical" bombing against Gaddafi.[111][112][113]

Trump would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia.[114][115] He added that Russia could help the United States in fighting ISIS militants.[116] In the same interview, Trump sarcastically[117] stated that he hoped Russia would unearth Hillary Clinton's missing emails from her time as Secretary of State.[118]

Social issues

Trump describes himself as "pro-life" and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother.[119] The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political advocacy group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong", while NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare".[120] Trump has stated that he supports "traditional marriage".[72] He opposes the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide[72][121][122] and believes the decision should be left to individual states.[121] Trump had stated that if he were elected, he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices that would overturn the ruling.[123]

Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general,[124] although his views have shifted over time.[125] He supports fixing the federal background check system so that criminal and mental health records are always put into the system.[126] Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana.[127] Trump favors capital punishment.[128][129]

Health care

Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states.[130] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[131] In October 2016 he falsely said that he had said the ACA was a "disaster" since before it was passed by Congress.[132] He said in June 2009 that he loved the idea, but questioned whether the country could afford it.[133][neutrality is disputed] Trump favors getting rid of backlogs and waitlists that are the focus of the Veterans Health Administration scandal, and believes that Veterans Affairs facilities need to be upgraded.[134]

Fringe theories

According to political writer Steve Benen, unlike past political leaders, Trump has not kept fringe theories and their supporters at arm's length.[135] Political writer Jack Shafer says that Trump may be a "fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views", but he has a revolutionary ability to attract free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments.[136][137]

For many years, beginning in at least 2011, Trump publicly questioned President Obama's citizenship status;[138] in 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump stated that Obama was born in the U.S.[139][140] In the past, he has also alluded to the conspiracy theory that President Obama is secretly a Muslim.[141][142]

Trump has discussed the unfounded notion that vaccine doses cause autism if administered too quickly in succession,[143][144] and the conspiracy theory that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might not have died of natural causes but was murdered.[145] He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[146]


Trump has described his political leanings and positions in various ways over time.[1][2][3] Politico has described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory"[3], while NBC News counted "141 distinct shifts on 23 major issues" during his campaign.[97] He has listed several different party affiliations over the years[4] and has also run as a Reform Party candidate.[4]

The political positions of Trump have widely been described by the media as "populist",[147][148] and many of his views cross party lines. For example, his economic campaign plan calls for large reductions in income taxes and deregulation,[149] consistent with conservative (Republican Party) policies, along with significant infrastructure investment,[150] usually considered a liberal (Democratic Party) policy.





















Trump identifies as a "free trader",[35][151][152] but has often been referred to as "protectionist"[153][154][155] because of his criticism of NAFTA,[156][157] the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),[45] and his proposal to raise tariffs on Chinese and Mexican exports to the United States significantly.[158][159]







Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[160][51] Trump vows to build a wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, promising that Mexico will pay for it.[52][161] He would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S.[54]










One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his original proposal in 2015 for a "total and complete" temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[162][62][163] Trump later changed his position in 2016 by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[64][164][165][67][68] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[166]






Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change that humans are the main cause of global warming.[70][167][72][168][neutrality is disputed] He has called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[169] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[75] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[170] and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries.[77] However, after winning the presidency, Trump said he has an "open mind" towards the Paris agreement, while continuing to deny that man-made global warming is fact.[171]





Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools.[172] He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools,[82] and has called Common Core "a disaster" that must be ended.[173] He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education.[174]


Trump has been described as non-interventionist[85][86] and nationalist.[87] He has repeatedly stated that he supports "America First" foreign policy by increasing military defense spending[87], but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[175]







In order to confront ISIS, Trump in 2015 called for seizing oil or bombing oil fields[97] in ISIS occupied areas, using U.S. air power and ground troops.[176] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][177][178] a position he retracted.[179] He has since argued that regional allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight.[97] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[180]
























He describes himself as "pro-life" and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother;[181] he has stated that he supports "traditional marriage".[72]






Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general,[182][126] although his views have shifted over time.[183] Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana.[127] He favors capital punishment,[128][129] as well as the use of waterboarding, a form of torture.[184][185]



Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states.[186] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[187]





According to political writer Jack Shafer, Trump may be a "fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views", but he has a revolutionary ability to attract free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments.[188][189] Trump has discussed the unfounded notion that vaccine doses cause autism if administered too quickly in succession,[143][190] and the conspiracy theory that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might not have died of natural causes but was murdered.[191] He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[192] For many years, beginning in at least 2011, Trump publicly questioned President Obama's citizenship status;[193] during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump stated that Obama was born in the U.S.[194][140] In the past, he has also alluded to the conspiracy theory that President Obama is secretly a Muslim.[195][196]

References

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Fahrenthold, David A. (August 17, 2015). "20 times Donald Trump has changed his mind since June". The Washington Post.
  2. ^ a b Hensch, Mark (July 12, 2015). "'Meet the Press' tracks Trump's flip-flops". The Hill.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Noah, Timothy (July 26, 2015). "Will the real Donald Trump please stand up?". Politico.
  4. ^ a b c d Cannon, Carl (July 21, 2015). "Why Donald Trump Didn't Run as a Democrat". RealClearPolitics.
  5. ^ Kazin, Michael (March 22, 2016). "How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be 'Populist'?". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Becker, Bernie (February 13, 2016). "Trump's 6 populist positions". Politico.
  7. ^ Timm, Jane C. (March 30, 2016). "'Meet the Press' tracks Trump's flip-flops". NBC News.
  8. ^ Bradner, Eric (January 24, 2016). "Trump: Like Reagan 'I have evolved on many issues'". CNN.
  9. ^ Jacobson, Louis (May 11, 2016). "Trying to pin down what Donald Trump thinks about abortion, the minimum wage, taxes, and U.S. debt". PolitiFact.com.
  10. ^ Qiu, Linda (July 6, 2016). "17 times Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  11. ^ "Tax Reform | Donald J Trump for President". Donaldjtrump.com. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
  12. ^ "Details and Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan". The Tax Foundation. Retrieved July 17, 2016.
  13. ^ Rubin, Richard (October 11, 2016). "Presidential Candidates' Plans Would Carry Tax Code in Different Directions". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved October 11, 2016.
  14. ^ "A new study says Trump would raise taxes for millions. Trump's campaign insists he won't". Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2016.
  15. ^ Timiraos, Nick (June 20, 2016). "U.S. Economy Would Be 'Diminished' Under Trump's Economic Plan, New Analysis Says". Wall Street Journal.
  16. ^ "What a Donald Trump presidency would do to the global economy". Washington Post. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  17. ^ Davis, Bob (September 19, 2016). "Trump Trade Plan Could Push U.S. into Recession, Study Says". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  18. ^ "White House battle set to chill US economy, says FT survey". Financial Times.
  19. ^ Timiraos, Nick. "Prominent Economists, Including Eight Nobel Laureates: 'Do Not Vote for Donald Trump'". WSJ. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
  20. ^ "Trump Tax Plan Seen Adding Jobs, Then Erasing Them Long-Term". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  21. ^ "Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016". The Tax Foundation. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  22. ^ Jacobson, Louis (May 19, 2016). "Elizabeth Warren gets better of Donald Trump on his stance on abolishing federal minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 23, 2016.
  23. ^ Greenberg, Jon (July 26, 2016). "Sanders: Trump would allow states to lower the minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  24. ^ Jacobson, Louis (July 28, 2016). "Donald Trump gets a Full Flop for stance on minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
  25. ^ Heavey, Susan (August 20, 2015). "Republican candidate Trump says low U.S. wages 'not a bad thing'". Reuters.
  26. ^ Engel, Pamela (November 11, 2015). "Donald Trump said wages are 'too high' in his opening debate statement". Business Insider. Retrieved November 11, 2015.
  27. ^ Alter, Charlotte (November 11, 2015). "Read Transcript of the Republican Debate in Milwaukee". Time. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  28. ^ Gass, Nick, Trump defends minimum wage comments, Politico (November 12, 2015).
  29. ^ "'Transcript: Donald Trump". This Week. ABC News. May 8, 2016.
  30. ^ Rossoll, Nicki (May 9, 2016). "Trump Walks Back Tax Plan, Saying 'I'm Allowed to Change'". ABC News. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  31. ^ "Meet the Press". NBC News. May 8, 2016.
  32. ^ Wright, Austin (May 8, 2016). "Trump: 'I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour'". POLITICO. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  33. ^ Worstall, Tim (May 9, 2016). "Donald Trump's Excellent Economic Idea: Abolish The Federal Minimum Wage". Forbes. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  34. ^ Kludt, Tom (July 27, 2016). "Trump says he'd support $10 minimum wage". CNN. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  35. ^ a b Maggie Haberman, Donald Trump Says He Favors Big Tariffs on Chinese Exports, The New York Times (January 7, 2016).
  36. ^ "As news of Trump's taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  37. ^ Boggioni, Tom. "WATCH: Donald Trump holds rally in Manheim, PA", Raw Story (October 1, 2016): "You can't let it happen. And these blood suckers want it to happen. They're politicians that are being taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them but not good for us" (see 31:00 to 32:00 of video).
  38. ^ "Trump upends GOP message on economy". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  39. ^ "Donald Trump's protectionism has a good pedigree". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  40. ^ "Lawrence Solomon: Donald Trump's protectionism fits right in with Republicans". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  41. ^ Epstein, Reid J.; Nelson, Colleen McCain (June 28, 2016). "Donald Trump Lays Out Protectionist Views in Trade Speech". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  42. ^ Appelbaum, Binyamin (March 10, 2016). "On Trade, Donald Trump Breaks With 200 Years of Economic Orthodoxy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  43. ^ "Trump calls NAFTA a "disaster"". 60 Minutes, CBS. September 25, 2015.
  44. ^ "Election 2016: Your money, your vote. Yes, 'President Trump' really could kill NAFTA – but it wouldn't be pretty". CNN. July 6, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  45. ^ a b c "President Trump? Among U.S. allies, Japan may be one of the most anxious about that idea". Los Angeles Times. June 26, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  46. ^ Lane, Charles (October 21, 2015). "Donald Trump's contempt for the free market". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  47. ^ Haberman, Maggie (January 7, 2016). "Donald Trump Says He Favors Big Tariffs on Chinese Exports". The New York Times — First Draft. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  48. ^ "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  49. ^ Needham, Vicki (July 24, 2016). "Trump suggests leaving WTO over import tax proposal". Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  50. ^ Galston, William A. (November 17, 2015). "Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave". The Wall Street Journal.
  51. ^ a b Stephen Loiaconi, Experts: Trump's border wall could be costly, ineffective, Sinclair Broadcast Group (August 18, 2015).
  52. ^ a b Johnson, Jenna (May 13, 2016). "Trump: All policy proposals are just flexible suggestions". The Washington Post.
  53. ^ Woodward, Bob (April 5, 2016). "Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  54. ^ a b Donald Trump emphasizes plans to build 'real' wall at Mexico border, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, August 19, 2015, retrieved September 29, 2015
  55. ^ Oh, Inae (August 19, 2015). "Donald Trump: The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional". Mother Jones. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  56. ^ Miller, Zeke J. (August 23, 2016). "Donald Trump Signals 'Softening' of Immigration Position". Time. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  57. ^ Bradner, Eric (August 28, 2016). "Trump to give immigration speech amid major questions". CNN. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  58. ^ "Donald Trump visits Mexico to build relations in the country". BBC World News. August 31, 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2016.
  59. ^ "Donald Trump Pivots Back to Hard-Line Immigration Stance". Time. August 31, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  60. ^ "Trump retreats on deportations, vows no amnesty". Associated Press. September 1, 2016. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
  61. ^ Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
  62. ^ a b Barro, Josh. "How Unpopular Is Trump's Muslim Ban? Depends How You Ask", The New York Times (December 15, 2015): "Donald J. Trump's proposal to bar Muslim noncitizens from entering the United States..."
  63. ^ Colvin, Jill; Barrow, Bill (December 14, 2015). "Donald Trump's supporters see plenty of sense in views that his critics denounce". U.S. News & World Report. He said American citizens, including Muslim members of the military, would be exempt, as would certain world leaders and athletes coming to the U.S. to compete.
  64. ^ a b Johnson, Jenna. "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries", Chicago Tribune (June 25, 2016): "[A] reporter asked Trump if [he] would be OK with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it 'wouldn't bother me.' Afterward, [spokeswoman] Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states..."
  65. ^ Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
  66. ^ Park, Haeyoun (July 22, 2016). "Trump Vows to Stop Immigration From Nations 'Compromised' by Terrorism. How Could It Work?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  67. ^ a b "Donald Trump says French and Germans to face 'extreme vetting' entering the US". Retrieved July 25, 2016. Mr Trump said the two European nations had been 'totally compromised by terrorism' because they had 'allowed people in.'
  68. ^ a b Dann, Carrie (July 24, 2016). "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". NBC News. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  69. ^ Johnson, Jenna (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump is expanding his Muslim ban, not rolling it back". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
  70. ^ a b Parker, Ashley; Davenport, Coral (May 26, 2016). "Donald Trump's Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules". The New York Times.
  71. ^ Samenow, Jason (March 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's unsettling nonsense on weather and climate". The Washington Post.
  72. ^ a b c d e Ehrenfreund, Max (July 22, 2015). "Here's what Donald Trump really believes". The Washington Post.
  73. ^ "What Donald Trump said about the Chinese inventing the 'hoax' of climate change". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  74. ^ Nelson D. Schwartz. May 21, 2016. Economic Promises a President Trump Could (and Couldn't) Keep The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2016
  75. ^ a b "Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on 'politicized science'". The Guardian. November 23, 2016. Retrieved November 23, 2016.
  76. ^ Jr, David B. Rivkin; Grossman, Andrew M. (20 November 2016). "Trump Can Ax the Clean Power Plan by Executive Order". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  77. ^ a b "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  78. ^ Meyer, Robinson (22 November 2016). "What Does Trump Think About Climate Change? He Doesn't Know Either". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 November 2016.
  79. ^ Bravender, Robin. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition". Scientific American.
  80. ^ Greshko, Michael (November 9, 2016). "The Global Dangers of Trump's Climate Denial". National Geographic. Retrieved November 24, 2016.
  81. ^ "Donald Trump on School Choice". American Principles in Action. Archived from the original on November 25, 2015. Retrieved November 25, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  82. ^ a b Trump sets record for longest 2016 GOP announcement speech. Fox News Channel, June 16, 2015
  83. ^ Moser, Laura (January 26, 2016). "Trump Releases Video Airing His Completely Vague Views on Education and Common Core". Slate.
  84. ^ Richwine, Jason (October 23, 2015). Why Not Abolish the Department of Education? National Review. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  85. ^ a b Cassidy, John (February 29, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Transforming the G.O.P. Into a Populist, Nativist Party". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  86. ^ a b c Philip Rucker (March 21, 2016). "Trump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy". The Washington Post.
  87. ^ a b c d "Donald Trump, American Nationalist". The National Interest. November 3, 2015.
  88. ^ Amanpour, Christiane (July 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's speech: 'America first,' but an America absent from the world". CNN.
  89. ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
  90. ^ Sanger, David E.; Haberman, Maggie (July 20, 2016). "Donald Trump Sets Conditions for Defending NATO Allies Against Attack". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  91. ^ "What's Trump's Position on NATO?". factcheck.org. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  92. ^ "Full Rush Transcript: Donald Trump, CNN Milwaukee Republican Presidential Town Hall". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
  93. ^ "Trump once called for sending US ground troops to fight ISIS and "take that oil"". motherjones.com.
  94. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (March 11, 2016). "Trump wants 30,000 troops. Would that defeat ISIS?". CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  95. ^ "Trump Calls for 20,000–30,000 Troops to Fight ISIS". The Weekly Standard. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  96. ^ "The Latest: Trump backtracks on US forces to fight militants". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  97. ^ a b c d e Timm, Jane C. "A Full List of Donald Trump's Rapidly Changing Policy Positions". NBC News. Retrieved July 12, 2016. Cite error: The named reference "nbcnews.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  98. ^ McCarthy, Tom. "Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". The Guardian. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  99. ^ "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Advocate Bringing Back Waterboarding". ABC News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  100. ^ Begley, Sarah. "Read Donald Trump's Speech to AIPAC". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  101. ^ Sherman, Amy (March 1, 2016). Would Donald Trump be 'neutral' between Israel and its enemies? Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
  102. ^ Trump: Israel should 'keep going' with settlements expansions Orly Azoulay, ynetews
  103. ^ a b Finnegan, Michael (July 12, 2016). Trump sticks to false statement that he opposed Iraq war from the start. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 28, 2016.
  104. ^ "Donald Trump Again Said He Opposed the War in Iraq. It's Still Not True". Fortune. September 26, 2016.
  105. ^ a b Kiely, Eugene (February 19, 2016). "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". Factcheck.org. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  106. ^ "2003 clip backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition", Fox News Channel (September 27, 2016). cf. "What Donald Trump said about the Iraq War in 2003". Fox Business via YouTube. September 27, 2016. Retrieved November 5, 2016. Event occurs at 1:15.
  107. ^ Concha, Joe. "'False' rating on Trump Iraq stance should be at least 'half true'", The Hill (September 29, 2016).
  108. ^ Greenberg, Don (February 16, 2016). "It's true: Donald Trump once supported impeaching George W. Bush". Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  109. ^ "Republican debate: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush engage in bitter clash over Iraq war, Bush family and Trump's business dealings". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. February 14, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  110. ^ a b CNN, Tom LoBianco. "Donald Trump on Afghanistan: Not a mistake". CNN. Retrieved July 22, 2016. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  111. ^ a b "AP FACT CHECK: Trump displays spotty memory on his views about Libya in debate". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  112. ^ a b Sharockman, Aaron (February 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim he never discussed Libya intervention". PolitiFact.com.
  113. ^ CNN, Eric Bradner. "Trump – again – reverses Libya position". CNN. Retrieved July 22, 2016. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  114. ^ "Trump says Putin is 'not going to go into Ukraine,' despite Crimea". CNN. August 1, 2016.
  115. ^ Fisher, Max (July 28, 2016). "Donald Trump's Appeal to Russia Shocks Foreign Policy Experts". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  116. ^ "Trump suggests U.S. accept Russia's annexation of Crimea". PBS. August 1, 2016.
  117. ^ Winsor, Morgan (July 28, 2016). "Trump: 'I Was Being Sarcastic' About Russia Finding Clinton's Emails". ABC News. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  118. ^ "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails as Pence condemns cyber-spying". Associated Press. July 27, 2016. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  119. ^ Wright, David (April 21, 2016). "Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion". CNN.
  120. ^ Kendall, Brent (May 18, 2016). "Donald Trump Releases Names of 11 Potential Supreme Court Choices". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved June 22, 2016.
  121. ^ a b "Donald Trump punching back". MediaBuzz. Fox News Channel. July 5, 2015.
  122. ^ Smith, Allan (June 13, 2016). "Donald Trump just made some of the most pro-LGBT remarks we've seen from a Republican candidate". Business Insider UK. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  123. ^ "Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump's financial record; Trump responds". January 31, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
  124. ^ Gorman, Michele (May 20, 2016). "A brief history of Donald Trump's stance on gun rights". Newsweek.
  125. ^ Krieg, Gregory (June 20, 2016). "The times Trump changed his positions on guns". CNN.
  126. ^ a b Official website. Protecting our Second Amendment rights will make America great again. "There has been a national background check system in place since 1998 ... Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system ... What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended." Retrieved: October 21, 2015.
  127. ^ a b February 27, 2015. (Excerpt from Donald Trump Remarks at CPAC). Donald Trump on Marijuana. C-Span. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
  128. ^ a b Diamond, Jeremy (December 11, 2015). "Trump: Death penalty for cop killers". Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved March 15, 2016.
  129. ^ a b Foderaro, Lisa (May 1, 1989). "Angered by Attack, Trump Urges Return Of the Death Penalty". The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2016.
  130. ^ Levey, Noam (March 3, 2016). "Trump promised a 'beautiful' healthcare plan, but it's pretty basic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  131. ^ Kertscher, Tom. "Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  132. ^ Dale, Daniel (October 26, 2016). "Donald Trump said he has opposed Obamacare since 'before they even voted on it.' That is a lie". The Toronto Star.
  133. ^ "Trump's World View", Fox News (June 30, 2009): "Well, I think it's noble, except I just don't know how a country that's in such debt – we are really a debtor nation right now, and I just don't know how a country in this kind of trouble can afford it."
  134. ^ "Veterans Administration Reforms That Will Make America Great Again". Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. October 31, 2015. Retrieved November 1, 2015.
  135. ^ Benen, Steve. "A conspiracy theorist and his powerful pals", MSNBC (December 3, 2015).
  136. ^ Shafer, Jack. "Did We Create Trump?", Politico (May 2016): "Trump's outrageous comments about John McCain, Muslims, the 14th Amendment and all the rest..."
  137. ^ Trump, Donald J.; Schwartz, Tony (1987). Trump: The Art of the Deal. Random House. p. 56. ISBN 978-0446353250. If you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.
  138. ^ Krieg, Gregory (September 16, 2016). 14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims – half from after 2011. CNN. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  139. ^ "Trump says Obama born in US, 'period' – after new 'birther' dust-up", Fox News Channel (September 16, 2016).
  140. ^ a b Maggie Haberman, Even as He Rises, Donald Trump Entertains Conspiracy Theories, The New York Times (February 29, 2016).
  141. ^ Moody, Chris; Holmes, Kristen (September 18, 2015). "Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim". CNN.
  142. ^ Colvin, Jill (January 6, 2016). "Trump joshes with audience over Muslim comments, Clinton". Associated Press.
  143. ^ a b Mahoney, Emily. "Fact Check: Donald Trump's claim on spaced-out vaccines, autism rate", Arizona Republic (October 16, 2015).
  144. ^ Krieg, Gregory J. (August 23, 2012). "Donald Trump Plays Doctor on Twitter". ABC News. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  145. ^ Pearce, Matt. "Scalia's death and lack of an autopsy bring out the conspiracy theorists", Los Angeles Times (February 16, 2016).
  146. ^ Qiu, Linda (May 6, 2016). "Anatomy of a talking point: Donald Trump on the JFK assassination". Tampa Bay Times. PolitiFact.com.
  147. ^ Kazin, Michael (March 22, 2016). "How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be 'Populist'?". The New York Times.
  148. ^ Becker, Bernie (February 13, 2016). "Trump's 6 populist positions". Politico.
  149. ^ "Tax Reform | Donald J Trump for President". Donaldjtrump.com. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
  150. ^ Max Ehrenfreund, Liberals will love something Donald Trump said last night, Washington Post (December 16, 2015).
  151. ^ "As news of Trump's taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  152. ^ Boggioni, Tom. "WATCH: Donald Trump holds rally in Manheim, PA", Raw Story (October 1, 2016): "You can't let it happen. And these blood suckers want it to happen. They're politicians that are being taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them but not good for us" (see 31:00 to 32:00 of video).
  153. ^ "Lawrence Solomon: Donald Trump's protectionism fits right in with Republicans". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  154. ^ Epstein, Reid J.; Nelson, Colleen McCain (June 28, 2016). "Donald Trump Lays Out Protectionist Views in Trade Speech". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  155. ^ Appelbaum, Binyamin (March 10, 2016). "On Trade, Donald Trump Breaks With 200 Years of Economic Orthodoxy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  156. ^ "Trump calls NAFTA a "disaster"". 60 Minutes, CBS. September 25, 2015.
  157. ^ "Election 2016: Your money, your vote. Yes, 'President Trump' really could kill NAFTA – but it wouldn't be pretty". CNN. July 6, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  158. ^ Lane, Charles (October 21, 2015). "Donald Trump's contempt for the free market". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  159. ^ Haberman, Maggie (January 7, 2016). "Donald Trump Says He Favors Big Tariffs on Chinese Exports". The New York Times — First Draft. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  160. ^ Galston, William A. (November 17, 2015). "Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave". The Wall Street Journal.
  161. ^ Woodward, Bob (April 5, 2016). "Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  162. ^ Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
  163. ^ Colvin, Jill; Barrow, Bill (December 14, 2015). "Donald Trump's supporters see plenty of sense in views that his critics denounce". U.S. News & World Report. He said American citizens, including Muslim members of the military, would be exempt, as would certain world leaders and athletes coming to the U.S. to compete.
  164. ^ Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
  165. ^ Park, Haeyoun (July 22, 2016). "Trump Vows to Stop Immigration From Nations 'Compromised' by Terrorism. How Could It Work?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  166. ^ Johnson, Jenna (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump is expanding his Muslim ban, not rolling it back". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
  167. ^ Samenow, Jason (March 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's unsettling nonsense on weather and climate". The Washington Post.
  168. ^ "What Donald Trump said about the Chinese inventing the 'hoax' of climate change". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  169. ^ Nelson D. Schwartz. May 21, 2016. Economic Promises a President Trump Could (and Couldn't) Keep The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2016
  170. ^ Jr, David B. Rivkin; Grossman, Andrew M. (20 November 2016). "Trump Can Ax the Clean Power Plan by Executive Order". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  171. ^ Meyer, Robinson (22 November 2016). "What Does Trump Think About Climate Change? He Doesn't Know Either". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 November 2016.
  172. ^ "Donald Trump on School Choice". American Principles in Action. Archived from the original on November 25, 2015. Retrieved November 25, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  173. ^ Moser, Laura (January 26, 2016). "Trump Releases Video Airing His Completely Vague Views on Education and Common Core". Slate.
  174. ^ Richwine, Jason (October 23, 2015). Why Not Abolish the Department of Education? National Review. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  175. ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
  176. ^ "Trump once called for sending US ground troops to fight ISIS and "take that oil"". motherjones.com.
  177. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (March 11, 2016). "Trump wants 30,000 troops. Would that defeat ISIS?". CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  178. ^ "Trump Calls for 20,000–30,000 Troops to Fight ISIS". The Weekly Standard. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  179. ^ "The Latest: Trump backtracks on US forces to fight militants". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  180. ^ Begley, Sarah. "Read Donald Trump's Speech to AIPAC". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  181. ^ Wright, David (April 21, 2016). "Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion". CNN.
  182. ^ Gorman, Michele (May 20, 2016). "A brief history of Donald Trump's stance on gun rights". Newsweek.
  183. ^ Krieg, Gregory (June 20, 2016). "The times Trump changed his positions on guns". CNN.
  184. ^ McCarthy, Tom. "Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". The Guardian. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  185. ^ "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Advocate Bringing Back Waterboarding". ABC News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  186. ^ Levey, Noam (March 3, 2016). "Trump promised a 'beautiful' healthcare plan, but it's pretty basic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  187. ^ Kertscher, Tom. "Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  188. ^ Shafer, Jack. "Did We Create Trump?", Politico (May 2016): "Trump's outrageous comments about John McCain, Muslims, the 14th Amendment and all the rest..."
  189. ^ Trump, Donald J.; Schwartz, Tony (1987). Trump: The Art of the Deal. Random House. p. 56. ISBN 978-0446353250. If you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.
  190. ^ Krieg, Gregory J. (August 23, 2012). "Donald Trump Plays Doctor on Twitter". ABC News. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  191. ^ Pearce, Matt. "Scalia's death and lack of an autopsy bring out the conspiracy theorists", Los Angeles Times (February 16, 2016).
  192. ^ Qiu, Linda (May 6, 2016). "Anatomy of a talking point: Donald Trump on the JFK assassination". Tampa Bay Times. PolitiFact.com.
  193. ^ Krieg, Gregory (September 16, 2016). 14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims – half from after 2011. CNN. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  194. ^ "Trump says Obama born in US, 'period' – after new 'birther' dust-up", Fox News Channel (September 16, 2016).
  195. ^ Moody, Chris; Holmes, Kristen (September 18, 2015). "Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim". CNN.
  196. ^ Colvin, Jill (January 6, 2016). "Trump joshes with audience over Muslim comments, Clinton". Associated Press.

editbreak2

Suggestions welcome. If there are no comments for a while, I'll reinstate the edit. JasperTECH (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support your massive removal - the PP section here is tiny in comparison to the main article and does a good job of giving an overview of his positions - I suggest you start an RfC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Somedifferentstuff: Not a bad idea, though I'm honestly surprised at the lack of support for this proposal. The articles on Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton don't have huge sections on political opinions like this article does. It makes sense to me that excessive detail on his political opinions should be removed in anticipation of all the other items that will begin to occupy the article, like his presidential transition and eventual actions as president.
I will certainly consider an RfC, but first I'll do a "min-RfC" by doing a courtesy ping to everyone who commented in the section above about climate change, since that is related to this proposal. @Gwillhickers, MrX, Sagittarian Milky Way, Objective3000, JFG, Madshurtie, and Volunteer Marek: Your opinions on this proposed change are welcome (I realize I'm double-pinging some people, but that way everyone gets notified). JasperTECH (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I generally prefer brevity. There is a middle ground between academe who often go for large word counts (and sometimes obscure wordings), and those that think you can express complex concepts in 140 characters. I think that brevity in this case is more important, as the subject’s political positions appear to be in constant motion. I think the trim is a great effort and should be installed, after which people can fine tune what they think isn’t perfect. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support. This article probably needs a trim at the moment and will definitely do so as Trump's transition and presidency progress. JasperTech's logic seems reasonable, though I don't know if there's anything in policy about preemptive splitting. Madshurtie (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length. Adding or removing content should be based on the idea of making a comprehensive summary. Also, the page is still going through a metamorphosis, so trying to delete and/or move content in the capacity JasperTech is suggesting, at this unstable stage of the game, is not advisable. Last, page length guidelines say that guidelines are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. If the only reason to delete/move content is because of page length, then no, that's not a good enough reason. There are plenty of GA and FA articles whose length far exceed guidelines. The Ronald Reagan and Barak Obama featured articles provides us with two definitive examples. There are many more. President's articles are generally longer than the average biography so we are not pushing the envelope on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: As I said above, "The political positions simply have a lot of undue weight, and I was hoping to improve the article by shortening them"—the purpose was not mainly to shorten the article (though it doesn't hurt if it could be made more concise).
Madshurtie, it does seem like there aren't a lot of policies or guidelines that I can cite in this situation. Here are some relevant ones, but editor judgment is required to make sense of what terms like "briefly" actually mean.
  • WP:SPINOFF says it may be necessary to split articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem. Then summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s) (emphasis added).
  • WP:DETAIL is more vague, but says that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs:
    • many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section)
    • others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points (a set of multiparagraph sections) (emphasis added)
    • some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)
It's worth pointing out that in the political positions article, there is a discussion on the talk page (albeit one that's a few days old) about splitting it into about three parts. If that was done, the full three layers mentioned above would be quite well represented since the political positions article would be smaller and easier to navigate for the average reader. JasperTECH (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing is hard work, which is why I thank JasperTech for his initiative. This section still has a lot of campaign-related fluff which should be trimmed down to a sober summary of Trump's policies, with more weight given to his current official positions (if any) than to hyperbolic campaign pronouncements. That being said, the proposed version omits quite a few relevant policy areas which should be briefly covered too. To ease editing, I will open a structured working draft below which we can collectively refine until reaching a consensus version. — JFG talk 04:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much in favor of what you did with the "fringe theory" section. It definitely makes more sense at the top. I'm still learning about formatting tables, so thanks for pitching in. This one will be a lot easier to edit! JasperTECH (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Directionally, this looks pretty good with the following exceptions:
  • Under Social issues, let's not use the twisted euphemism "he has stated that he supports traditional marriage". It should be changed to "He opposes the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and believes the decision should be left to individual states, and that he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices that would overturn the ruling."
Are you sure? I heard Trump in a recent interview (October probably) answer squarely that the question of same-sex marriage was "settled by the highest court" and that he wouldn't attempt to touch it, notwithstanding his personal views on the matter. I believe you are referring to his position on abortion, which indeed he said should be left to the States, hinting at the possibility of having the Supreme Court some day overturn Roe v. Wade (but that wouldn't be his call, obviously, separation of powers and all that…) Therefore I believe we should rather write something like "Trump personally supports traditional marriage[cite 1] but has confirmed that the legality of same-sex marriage nationwide was a settled issue".[cite 2] No time to hunt for sources right now, sorry. — JFG talk 13:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure. The problem is that he seems to straddle his position on controversial issues to suit the mood. If he has published a clear, unequivocal, unwavering position on SSM, then I am not aware of it.- MrX 14:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Trump: Same-sex marriage is 'settled,' but Roe v Wade can be changed (now amended in working draft) — JFG talk 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can live with that.- MrX 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Fringe theories, I'm OK with removing the "questioned President Obama's citizenship status" material as long as we retain the similar material elsewhere in the article.- MrX 13:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sad episode is covered by a lengthy, well-cited and community-supported paragraph in the "Political involvement 1988–2015" section, I distinctly remember helping craft a consensus version at the time (although it's been somewhat bludgeoned since then, but that's ok). — JFG talk 13:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working draft

ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED SUMMARY

Trump has described his political leanings and positions in various ways over time.[1][2][3] Politico has described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory".[3] He has listed several different party affiliations over the years[3][4] and has also run as a Reform Party candidate.[4] The positions that he has revised or reversed include stances on progressive taxation, abortion, and government involvement in health care.[3]

Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist".[5][6] Trump has described his political positions in various and often contradictory ways over time.[1][7] Trump stated, "I have evolved on many issues. There are some issues that are very much the same, I've been constant on many issues. But I have evolved on certain issues."[8] PolitiFact.com wrote that it is difficult to determine Trump's stance on issues, given his frequent changes in position and "his penchant for using confusing, vague and even contradictory language".[9] PolitiFact.com counted at least 17 times when Trump said something and then denied having said it.[10]

Trump has described his political leanings and positions in various ways over time.[1][2][3] Politico has described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory"[3], while NBC News counted "141 distinct shifts on 23 major issues" during his campaign.[11] He has listed several different party affiliations over the years[4] and has also run as a Reform Party candidate.[4]

The political positions of Donald Trump have widely been described by the media as "populist",[12][13] and many of his views cross party lines. For example, his economic campaign plan calls for large reductions in income taxes and deregulation,[14] consistent with conservative (Republican Party) policies, along with significant infrastructure investment,[15] usually considered a liberal (Democratic Party) policy.

According to political writer Jack Shafer, Trump may be a "fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views", but he has a revolutionary ability to attract free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments.[16][17]


Economic issues

Trump's campaign tax plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate to 15%, concurrent with the elimination of various business loopholes and deductions.[18] Personal income taxes would also be reduced; the top rate would be reduced from 39.6% to 25%, a large "zero bracket" would be created, and the alternative minimum tax would be eliminated, as would the estate tax (which currently applies to individual estates over $5.45 million or $10.9 million per married couple).[19] Under Trump's economic plan, families with head-of-household filing status making between $20,000 and $200,000, including many single parents, would pay more in taxes than under current tax law, due to Trump's elimination of some deductions and exemptions.[20][21] Several reports assess that the economy would be "diminished" by heavy job losses and recession under Trump's economic policies,[22][23][24] with a large number of economists, including 19 of 32 living Nobel laureates, warning against his economic policies.[25][26] Two analyses find that Trump's economic plan will have mixed results; one analysis finds that Trump's plan would create short-term economic gains but major long-term economic losses in terms of jobs,[27] and another analysis finds that the plan will create 2.2 million jobs, a major increase in capital stock and some wage growth, but by increasing federal debt by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion.[28]

Trump's comments about the minimum wage have been inconsistent:[29][30][31] he has said that a low minimum wage is good;[32] that the minimum wage should not be raised;[33][34][35] that the minimum wage should be raised;[36][37] that he would like an increase, but the states should do the increasing;[38][39] that he is against any federal minimum wage floor;[40] and that he is in favor of a $10 federal minimum wage, but "let the states make the deal".[41]

Trump identifies as a "free trader", but says that trade must be "reasonably fair", and has described supporters of international trade deals that are good for other countries but not good for the United States as "blood suckers".[42][43][44] He has often been referred to as "protectionist".[45][46][47][48][49] He says NAFTA has been the "worst trade deal in history", and would as president either renegotiate or break the NAFTA agreement.[50][51] He opposes the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).[52] Trump proposes to raise tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States by 45%, and has raised the idea of placing 35% tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States.[53][54] Trump has called the World Trade Organization (WTO) a "disaster",[55] and favors renegotiating or leaving the WTO unless it allows his proposed tariff increases.[56]

Economy

Trump identifies as a "free trader",[42][57][58] but has often been referred to as "protectionist"[59][60][61] because of his criticism of NAFTA,[62][63] the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),[52] and his proposal to raise tariffs on Chinese and Mexican exports to the United States significantly.[64][65]


Immigration

Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[66][67] Trump vows to build a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for.[68][69] Trump would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S., stating "Day 1 of my presidency, [illegal immigrants] are getting out and getting out fast."[70] Trump opposes birthright citizenship.[71]

In late August 2016, Trump hinted he might soften his position calling for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants.[72][73] On August 31, 2016, he made a visit to Mexico and met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, saying he wanted to build relations with the country.[74] However, in a major speech later that night, Trump laid out a 10-point plan reaffirming his hardline positions, including building a wall along the Mexican border to be paid for by Mexico, potentially deporting "anyone who has entered the United States illegally", denying legal status to such people unless they leave the country and apply for re-entry, and creating a deportation task force.[75] He said the focus of the task force would be criminals, those who have overstayed their visas, and other "security threats".[76]

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his original proposal in 2015 for a "total and complete" temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[77][78][79] Trump later changed his position in 2016 by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[80][81][82][83][84] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[85]

Immigration

Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[86][67] Trump vows to build a wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, promising that Mexico will pay for it.[68][87] He would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S.[70]

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his original proposal in 2015 for a "total and complete" temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[88][78][89] Trump later changed his position in 2016 by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[80][90][91][83][84] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[92]


Climate change

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[93][94] repeatedly saying that global warming is a "hoax".[95][96] Trump has called the EPA a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[97] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[98] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[99] and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries, saying that it treats the United States unfairly and gives favorable treatment to countries like China.[100] However, after winning the presidency, Trump said he has an "open mind" towards the Paris agreement, while continuing to deny that man-made global warming is fact.[101]

Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute advocacy group, as head of the future EPA transition team. Ebell has no scientific qualifications, and is well-known for denying that Earth is warming or that humans are responsible.[102][103]

Energy and climate

Trump's energy policy advocates domestic industrial support for both fossil and renewable energy sources in order to curb reliance on Middle-Eastern oil and possibly turn the USA into a net energy exporter.[104] His appointed advisers favor a less regulated energy market and do not think the threat of climate change requires immediate action.[105]

Trump doesn't accept the scientific consensus on climate change.[93][106] In 2012 he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but later said that he was joking.[95][107][neutrality is disputed] He has called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[108] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[98] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[109] and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries.[100] However, after winning the presidency, Trump said he has an "open mind" towards the Paris agreement.[110]


Education

Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools.[111] He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools,[112] and has called Common Core "a disaster" that must be ended.[113] He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education.[114]

Education

Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools.[115] He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools,[112] and has called Common Core "a disaster" that must be ended.[116] He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education.[117]


Foreign policy

Trump has been described as non-interventionist[118][119] and nationalist.[120] Trump has repeatedly stated that he supports "America First" foreign policy, though he is not linked to the historical isolationist America First Party (1944) or the defunct paleoconservative America First Party (2002).[121] He supports increasing United States military defense spending,[120] but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[122] He says America should look inward, stop "nation building", and re-orient its resources toward domestic needs.[119] He questions whether he, as president, would automatically extend security guarantees to NATO members,[123] and suggests that he might leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance.[124] Trump has called for Japan to pay for the costs of American troops stationed there and that it might need to develop nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from North Korea.[52][125]

In order to confront ISIS, Trump in 2015 called for seizing the oil in ISIS occupied areas, using U.S. air power and ground troops.[126] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][127][128] a position he retracted.[129] He has since argued that regional allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight.[11] He also believes that oil fields in ISIS-controlled areas should be bombed.[11] He supports the use of waterboarding, a form of torture, and has said he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse".[130][131] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[132] Regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Trump has stated the importance of being a neutral party during potential negotiations, while also having stated that he is "a big fan of Israel."[133] He supports Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.[134]

During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he opposed the Iraq War even before it was launched, although his public position had been unclear at the time.[135][136] In 2002, when asked whether he supported invading Iraq, Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so" and added "I wish the first time it was done correctly" in reference to the Gulf War of 1990–1991.[135][137]

Shortly before the 2003 invasion, he said: "Well, [Bush's] either got to do something—or not do something, perhaps. […] And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."[138][139]

Trump publicly referred to the war as a "mess" within a week after it began, and by 2004 he said he was opposed to it.[137] Since 2004, he has repeatedly criticized the war, especially during the primary debates with Jeb Bush.[140][141]

Trump has at times during his presidential campaign stated that the Afghanistan War was a mistake, and at other times stated that it was necessary.[142] He supports keeping a limited number of United States troops there.[142] Trump was a strong supporter of the 2011 military intervention in Libya at the time.[143][144] He has since then reversed his position several times, saying finally in June 2016 that he would have supported "surgical" bombing against Gaddafi.[143][144][145]

Trump would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia.[146][147] He added that Russia could help the United States in fighting ISIS militants.[148] In the same interview, Trump sarcastically[149] stated that he hoped Russia would unearth Hillary Clinton's missing emails from her time as Secretary of State.[150]

Foreign policy

Trump has been described as non-interventionist[118][119] and nationalist.[120] He has repeatedly stated that he supports "America First" foreign policy by increasing military defense spending[120], but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[151]

In order to confront ISIS, Trump in 2015 called for seizing oil or bombing oil fields[11] in ISIS occupied areas, using U.S. air power and ground troops.[152] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][153][154] a position he retracted.[155] He has since argued that regional allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight.[11] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[156]


Social issues

Trump describes himself as "pro-life" and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother.[157] The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political advocacy group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong", while NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare".[158] Trump has stated that he supports "traditional marriage".[95] He opposes the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide[95][159][160] and believes the decision should be left to individual states.[159] Trump had stated that if he were elected, he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices that would overturn the ruling.[161]

Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general,[162] although his views have shifted over time.[163] He supports fixing the federal background check system so that criminal and mental health records are always put into the system.[164] Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana.[165] Trump favors capital punishment.[166][167]

Social issues

Trump describes himself as "pro-life" and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother,[168] but said he is committed to appointing justices who want to change the ruling in Roe v. Wade.[169] He personally supports "traditional marriage"[95] but considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.[169]

Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general,[170][164] although his views have shifted over time.[171] Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana.[165] He favors capital punishment,[166][167] as well as the use of waterboarding, a form of torture.[172][173]


Health care

Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states.[174] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[175] In October 2016 he falsely said that he had said the ACA was a "disaster" since before it was passed by Congress.[176] He said in June 2009 that he loved the idea, but questioned whether the country could afford it.[177][neutrality is disputed] Trump favors getting rid of backlogs and waitlists that are the focus of the Veterans Health Administration scandal, and believes that Veterans Affairs facilities need to be upgraded.[178]

Health care

Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states.[179] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[180]


Fringe theories

According to political writer Steve Benen, unlike past political leaders, Trump has not kept fringe theories and their supporters at arm's length.[181] Political writer Jack Shafer says that Trump may be a "fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views", but he has a revolutionary ability to attract free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments.[182][183]

For many years, beginning in at least 2011, Trump publicly questioned President Obama's citizenship status;[184] in 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump stated that Obama was born in the U.S.[185][186] In the past, he has also alluded to the conspiracy theory that President Obama is secretly a Muslim.[187][188]

Trump has discussed the unfounded notion that vaccine doses cause autism if administered too quickly in succession,[189][190] and the conspiracy theory that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might not have died of natural causes but was murdered.[191] He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[192]

(Omit: these controversies are not policies or political positions. Moved Shafer's analysis to top section.)

References

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Fahrenthold, David A. (August 17, 2015). "20 times Donald Trump has changed his mind since June". The Washington Post.
  2. ^ a b Hensch, Mark (July 12, 2015). "'Meet the Press' tracks Trump's flip-flops". The Hill.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Noah, Timothy (July 26, 2015). "Will the real Donald Trump please stand up?". Politico.
  4. ^ a b c d Cannon, Carl (July 21, 2015). "Why Donald Trump Didn't Run as a Democrat". RealClearPolitics.
  5. ^ Kazin, Michael (March 22, 2016). "How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be 'Populist'?". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Becker, Bernie (February 13, 2016). "Trump's 6 populist positions". Politico.
  7. ^ Timm, Jane C. (March 30, 2016). "'Meet the Press' tracks Trump's flip-flops". NBC News.
  8. ^ Bradner, Eric (January 24, 2016). "Trump: Like Reagan 'I have evolved on many issues'". CNN.
  9. ^ Jacobson, Louis (May 11, 2016). "Trying to pin down what Donald Trump thinks about abortion, the minimum wage, taxes, and U.S. debt". PolitiFact.com.
  10. ^ Qiu, Linda (July 6, 2016). "17 times Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  11. ^ a b c d e Timm, Jane C. "A Full List of Donald Trump's Rapidly Changing Policy Positions". NBC News. Retrieved July 12, 2016. Cite error: The named reference "nbcnews.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. ^ Kazin, Michael (March 22, 2016). "How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be 'Populist'?". The New York Times.
  13. ^ Becker, Bernie (February 13, 2016). "Trump's 6 populist positions". Politico.
  14. ^ "Tax Reform | Donald J Trump for President". Donaldjtrump.com. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
  15. ^ Max Ehrenfreund, Liberals will love something Donald Trump said last night, Washington Post (December 16, 2015).
  16. ^ Shafer, Jack. "Did We Create Trump?", Politico (May 2016): "Trump's outrageous comments about John McCain, Muslims, the 14th Amendment and all the rest..."
  17. ^ Trump, Donald J.; Schwartz, Tony (1987). Trump: The Art of the Deal. Random House. p. 56. ISBN 978-0446353250. If you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.
  18. ^ "Tax Reform | Donald J Trump for President". Donaldjtrump.com. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
  19. ^ "Details and Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan". The Tax Foundation. Retrieved July 17, 2016.
  20. ^ Rubin, Richard (October 11, 2016). "Presidential Candidates' Plans Would Carry Tax Code in Different Directions". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved October 11, 2016.
  21. ^ "A new study says Trump would raise taxes for millions. Trump's campaign insists he won't". Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2016.
  22. ^ Timiraos, Nick (June 20, 2016). "U.S. Economy Would Be 'Diminished' Under Trump's Economic Plan, New Analysis Says". Wall Street Journal.
  23. ^ "What a Donald Trump presidency would do to the global economy". Washington Post. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  24. ^ Davis, Bob (September 19, 2016). "Trump Trade Plan Could Push U.S. into Recession, Study Says". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  25. ^ "White House battle set to chill US economy, says FT survey". Financial Times.
  26. ^ Timiraos, Nick. "Prominent Economists, Including Eight Nobel Laureates: 'Do Not Vote for Donald Trump'". WSJ. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
  27. ^ "Trump Tax Plan Seen Adding Jobs, Then Erasing Them Long-Term". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  28. ^ "Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016". The Tax Foundation. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  29. ^ Jacobson, Louis (May 19, 2016). "Elizabeth Warren gets better of Donald Trump on his stance on abolishing federal minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 23, 2016.
  30. ^ Greenberg, Jon (July 26, 2016). "Sanders: Trump would allow states to lower the minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  31. ^ Jacobson, Louis (July 28, 2016). "Donald Trump gets a Full Flop for stance on minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
  32. ^ Heavey, Susan (August 20, 2015). "Republican candidate Trump says low U.S. wages 'not a bad thing'". Reuters.
  33. ^ Engel, Pamela (November 11, 2015). "Donald Trump said wages are 'too high' in his opening debate statement". Business Insider. Retrieved November 11, 2015.
  34. ^ Alter, Charlotte (November 11, 2015). "Read Transcript of the Republican Debate in Milwaukee". Time. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  35. ^ Gass, Nick, Trump defends minimum wage comments, Politico (November 12, 2015).
  36. ^ "'Transcript: Donald Trump". This Week. ABC News. May 8, 2016.
  37. ^ Rossoll, Nicki (May 9, 2016). "Trump Walks Back Tax Plan, Saying 'I'm Allowed to Change'". ABC News. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  38. ^ "Meet the Press". NBC News. May 8, 2016.
  39. ^ Wright, Austin (May 8, 2016). "Trump: 'I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour'". POLITICO. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  40. ^ Worstall, Tim (May 9, 2016). "Donald Trump's Excellent Economic Idea: Abolish The Federal Minimum Wage". Forbes. Retrieved May 12, 2016.
  41. ^ Kludt, Tom (July 27, 2016). "Trump says he'd support $10 minimum wage". CNN. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  42. ^ a b Maggie Haberman, Donald Trump Says He Favors Big Tariffs on Chinese Exports, The New York Times (January 7, 2016).
  43. ^ "As news of Trump's taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  44. ^ Boggioni, Tom. "WATCH: Donald Trump holds rally in Manheim, PA", Raw Story (October 1, 2016): "You can't let it happen. And these blood suckers want it to happen. They're politicians that are being taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them but not good for us" (see 31:00 to 32:00 of video).
  45. ^ "Trump upends GOP message on economy". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  46. ^ "Donald Trump's protectionism has a good pedigree". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  47. ^ "Lawrence Solomon: Donald Trump's protectionism fits right in with Republicans". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  48. ^ Epstein, Reid J.; Nelson, Colleen McCain (June 28, 2016). "Donald Trump Lays Out Protectionist Views in Trade Speech". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  49. ^ Appelbaum, Binyamin (March 10, 2016). "On Trade, Donald Trump Breaks With 200 Years of Economic Orthodoxy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  50. ^ "Trump calls NAFTA a "disaster"". 60 Minutes, CBS. September 25, 2015.
  51. ^ "Election 2016: Your money, your vote. Yes, 'President Trump' really could kill NAFTA – but it wouldn't be pretty". CNN. July 6, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  52. ^ a b c "President Trump? Among U.S. allies, Japan may be one of the most anxious about that idea". Los Angeles Times. June 26, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  53. ^ Lane, Charles (October 21, 2015). "Donald Trump's contempt for the free market". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  54. ^ Haberman, Maggie (January 7, 2016). "Donald Trump Says He Favors Big Tariffs on Chinese Exports". The New York Times — First Draft. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  55. ^ "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  56. ^ Needham, Vicki (July 24, 2016). "Trump suggests leaving WTO over import tax proposal". Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  57. ^ "As news of Trump's taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  58. ^ Boggioni, Tom. "WATCH: Donald Trump holds rally in Manheim, PA", Raw Story (October 1, 2016): "You can't let it happen. And these blood suckers want it to happen. They're politicians that are being taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them but not good for us" (see 31:00 to 32:00 of video).
  59. ^ "Lawrence Solomon: Donald Trump's protectionism fits right in with Republicans". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  60. ^ Epstein, Reid J.; Nelson, Colleen McCain (June 28, 2016). "Donald Trump Lays Out Protectionist Views in Trade Speech". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  61. ^ Appelbaum, Binyamin (March 10, 2016). "On Trade, Donald Trump Breaks With 200 Years of Economic Orthodoxy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  62. ^ "Trump calls NAFTA a "disaster"". 60 Minutes, CBS. September 25, 2015.
  63. ^ "Election 2016: Your money, your vote. Yes, 'President Trump' really could kill NAFTA – but it wouldn't be pretty". CNN. July 6, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  64. ^ Lane, Charles (October 21, 2015). "Donald Trump's contempt for the free market". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  65. ^ Haberman, Maggie (January 7, 2016). "Donald Trump Says He Favors Big Tariffs on Chinese Exports". The New York Times — First Draft. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  66. ^ Galston, William A. (November 17, 2015). "Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave". The Wall Street Journal.
  67. ^ a b Stephen Loiaconi, Experts: Trump's border wall could be costly, ineffective, Sinclair Broadcast Group (August 18, 2015).
  68. ^ a b Johnson, Jenna (May 13, 2016). "Trump: All policy proposals are just flexible suggestions". The Washington Post.
  69. ^ Woodward, Bob (April 5, 2016). "Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  70. ^ a b Donald Trump emphasizes plans to build 'real' wall at Mexico border, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, August 19, 2015, retrieved September 29, 2015
  71. ^ Oh, Inae (August 19, 2015). "Donald Trump: The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional". Mother Jones. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  72. ^ Miller, Zeke J. (August 23, 2016). "Donald Trump Signals 'Softening' of Immigration Position". Time. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  73. ^ Bradner, Eric (August 28, 2016). "Trump to give immigration speech amid major questions". CNN. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  74. ^ "Donald Trump visits Mexico to build relations in the country". BBC World News. August 31, 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2016.
  75. ^ "Donald Trump Pivots Back to Hard-Line Immigration Stance". Time. August 31, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  76. ^ "Trump retreats on deportations, vows no amnesty". Associated Press. September 1, 2016. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
  77. ^ Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
  78. ^ a b Barro, Josh. "How Unpopular Is Trump's Muslim Ban? Depends How You Ask", The New York Times (December 15, 2015): "Donald J. Trump's proposal to bar Muslim noncitizens from entering the United States..."
  79. ^ Colvin, Jill; Barrow, Bill (December 14, 2015). "Donald Trump's supporters see plenty of sense in views that his critics denounce". U.S. News & World Report. He said American citizens, including Muslim members of the military, would be exempt, as would certain world leaders and athletes coming to the U.S. to compete.
  80. ^ a b Johnson, Jenna. "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries", Chicago Tribune (June 25, 2016): "[A] reporter asked Trump if [he] would be OK with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it 'wouldn't bother me.' Afterward, [spokeswoman] Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states..."
  81. ^ Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
  82. ^ Park, Haeyoun (July 22, 2016). "Trump Vows to Stop Immigration From Nations 'Compromised' by Terrorism. How Could It Work?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  83. ^ a b "Donald Trump says French and Germans to face 'extreme vetting' entering the US". Retrieved July 25, 2016. Mr Trump said the two European nations had been 'totally compromised by terrorism' because they had 'allowed people in.'
  84. ^ a b Dann, Carrie (July 24, 2016). "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". NBC News. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  85. ^ Johnson, Jenna (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump is expanding his Muslim ban, not rolling it back". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
  86. ^ Galston, William A. (November 17, 2015). "Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave". The Wall Street Journal.
  87. ^ Woodward, Bob (April 5, 2016). "Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  88. ^ Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
  89. ^ Colvin, Jill; Barrow, Bill (December 14, 2015). "Donald Trump's supporters see plenty of sense in views that his critics denounce". U.S. News & World Report. He said American citizens, including Muslim members of the military, would be exempt, as would certain world leaders and athletes coming to the U.S. to compete.
  90. ^ Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
  91. ^ Park, Haeyoun (July 22, 2016). "Trump Vows to Stop Immigration From Nations 'Compromised' by Terrorism. How Could It Work?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  92. ^ Johnson, Jenna (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump is expanding his Muslim ban, not rolling it back". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
  93. ^ a b Parker, Ashley; Davenport, Coral (May 26, 2016). "Donald Trump's Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules". The New York Times.
  94. ^ Samenow, Jason (March 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's unsettling nonsense on weather and climate". The Washington Post.
  95. ^ a b c d e Ehrenfreund, Max (July 22, 2015). "Here's what Donald Trump really believes". The Washington Post.
  96. ^ "What Donald Trump said about the Chinese inventing the 'hoax' of climate change". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  97. ^ Nelson D. Schwartz. May 21, 2016. Economic Promises a President Trump Could (and Couldn't) Keep The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2016
  98. ^ a b "Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on 'politicized science'". The Guardian. November 23, 2016. Retrieved November 23, 2016. Cite error: The named reference "guardian22nov" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  99. ^ Jr, David B. Rivkin; Grossman, Andrew M. (20 November 2016). "Trump Can Ax the Clean Power Plan by Executive Order". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  100. ^ a b "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  101. ^ Meyer, Robinson (22 November 2016). "What Does Trump Think About Climate Change? He Doesn't Know Either". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 November 2016.
  102. ^ Bravender, Robin. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition". Scientific American.
  103. ^ Greshko, Michael (November 9, 2016). "The Global Dangers of Trump's Climate Denial". National Geographic. Retrieved November 24, 2016.
  104. ^ "An America first energy plan" (Press release). May 26, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
  105. ^ Mufson, Steven (November 29, 2016). "Trump's energy policy team includes climate change skeptic, free-market advocate". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
  106. ^ Samenow, Jason (March 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's unsettling nonsense on weather and climate". The Washington Post.
  107. ^ "What Donald Trump said about the Chinese inventing the 'hoax' of climate change". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  108. ^ Nelson D. Schwartz. May 21, 2016. Economic Promises a President Trump Could (and Couldn't) Keep The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2016
  109. ^ Jr, David B. Rivkin; Grossman, Andrew M. (20 November 2016). "Trump Can Ax the Clean Power Plan by Executive Order". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  110. ^ Meyer, Robinson (22 November 2016). "What Does Trump Think About Climate Change? He Doesn't Know Either". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 November 2016.
  111. ^ "Donald Trump on School Choice". American Principles in Action. Archived from the original on November 25, 2015. Retrieved November 25, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  112. ^ a b Trump sets record for longest 2016 GOP announcement speech. Fox News Channel, June 16, 2015
  113. ^ Moser, Laura (January 26, 2016). "Trump Releases Video Airing His Completely Vague Views on Education and Common Core". Slate.
  114. ^ Richwine, Jason (October 23, 2015). Why Not Abolish the Department of Education? National Review. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  115. ^ "Donald Trump on School Choice". American Principles in Action. Archived from the original on November 25, 2015. Retrieved November 25, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  116. ^ Moser, Laura (January 26, 2016). "Trump Releases Video Airing His Completely Vague Views on Education and Common Core". Slate.
  117. ^ Richwine, Jason (October 23, 2015). Why Not Abolish the Department of Education? National Review. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  118. ^ a b Cassidy, John (February 29, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Transforming the G.O.P. Into a Populist, Nativist Party". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  119. ^ a b c Philip Rucker (March 21, 2016). "Trump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy". The Washington Post.
  120. ^ a b c d "Donald Trump, American Nationalist". The National Interest. November 3, 2015.
  121. ^ Amanpour, Christiane (July 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's speech: 'America first,' but an America absent from the world". CNN.
  122. ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
  123. ^ Sanger, David E.; Haberman, Maggie (July 20, 2016). "Donald Trump Sets Conditions for Defending NATO Allies Against Attack". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  124. ^ "What's Trump's Position on NATO?". factcheck.org. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  125. ^ "Full Rush Transcript: Donald Trump, CNN Milwaukee Republican Presidential Town Hall". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
  126. ^ "Trump once called for sending US ground troops to fight ISIS and "take that oil"". motherjones.com.
  127. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (March 11, 2016). "Trump wants 30,000 troops. Would that defeat ISIS?". CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  128. ^ "Trump Calls for 20,000–30,000 Troops to Fight ISIS". The Weekly Standard. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  129. ^ "The Latest: Trump backtracks on US forces to fight militants". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  130. ^ McCarthy, Tom. "Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". The Guardian. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  131. ^ "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Advocate Bringing Back Waterboarding". ABC News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  132. ^ Begley, Sarah. "Read Donald Trump's Speech to AIPAC". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  133. ^ Sherman, Amy (March 1, 2016). Would Donald Trump be 'neutral' between Israel and its enemies? Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
  134. ^ Trump: Israel should 'keep going' with settlements expansions Orly Azoulay, ynetews
  135. ^ a b Finnegan, Michael (July 12, 2016). Trump sticks to false statement that he opposed Iraq war from the start. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 28, 2016.
  136. ^ "Donald Trump Again Said He Opposed the War in Iraq. It's Still Not True". Fortune. September 26, 2016.
  137. ^ a b Kiely, Eugene (February 19, 2016). "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". Factcheck.org. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  138. ^ "2003 clip backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition", Fox News Channel (September 27, 2016). cf. "What Donald Trump said about the Iraq War in 2003". Fox Business via YouTube. September 27, 2016. Retrieved November 5, 2016. Event occurs at 1:15.
  139. ^ Concha, Joe. "'False' rating on Trump Iraq stance should be at least 'half true'", The Hill (September 29, 2016).
  140. ^ Greenberg, Don (February 16, 2016). "It's true: Donald Trump once supported impeaching George W. Bush". Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  141. ^ "Republican debate: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush engage in bitter clash over Iraq war, Bush family and Trump's business dealings". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. February 14, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  142. ^ a b CNN, Tom LoBianco. "Donald Trump on Afghanistan: Not a mistake". CNN. Retrieved July 22, 2016. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  143. ^ a b "AP FACT CHECK: Trump displays spotty memory on his views about Libya in debate". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  144. ^ a b Sharockman, Aaron (February 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim he never discussed Libya intervention". PolitiFact.com.
  145. ^ CNN, Eric Bradner. "Trump – again – reverses Libya position". CNN. Retrieved July 22, 2016. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  146. ^ "Trump says Putin is 'not going to go into Ukraine,' despite Crimea". CNN. August 1, 2016.
  147. ^ Fisher, Max (July 28, 2016). "Donald Trump's Appeal to Russia Shocks Foreign Policy Experts". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  148. ^ "Trump suggests U.S. accept Russia's annexation of Crimea". PBS. August 1, 2016.
  149. ^ Winsor, Morgan (July 28, 2016). "Trump: 'I Was Being Sarcastic' About Russia Finding Clinton's Emails". ABC News. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  150. ^ "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails as Pence condemns cyber-spying". Associated Press. July 27, 2016. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  151. ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
  152. ^ "Trump once called for sending US ground troops to fight ISIS and "take that oil"". motherjones.com.
  153. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (March 11, 2016). "Trump wants 30,000 troops. Would that defeat ISIS?". CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  154. ^ "Trump Calls for 20,000–30,000 Troops to Fight ISIS". The Weekly Standard. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  155. ^ "The Latest: Trump backtracks on US forces to fight militants". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  156. ^ Begley, Sarah. "Read Donald Trump's Speech to AIPAC". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  157. ^ Wright, David (April 21, 2016). "Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion". CNN.
  158. ^ Kendall, Brent (May 18, 2016). "Donald Trump Releases Names of 11 Potential Supreme Court Choices". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved June 22, 2016.
  159. ^ a b "Donald Trump punching back". MediaBuzz. Fox News Channel. July 5, 2015.
  160. ^ Smith, Allan (June 13, 2016). "Donald Trump just made some of the most pro-LGBT remarks we've seen from a Republican candidate". Business Insider UK. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  161. ^ "Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump's financial record; Trump responds". January 31, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
  162. ^ Gorman, Michele (May 20, 2016). "A brief history of Donald Trump's stance on gun rights". Newsweek.
  163. ^ Krieg, Gregory (June 20, 2016). "The times Trump changed his positions on guns". CNN.
  164. ^ a b Official website. Protecting our Second Amendment rights will make America great again. "There has been a national background check system in place since 1998 ... Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system ... What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended." Retrieved: October 21, 2015.
  165. ^ a b February 27, 2015. (Excerpt from Donald Trump Remarks at CPAC). Donald Trump on Marijuana. C-Span. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
  166. ^ a b Diamond, Jeremy (December 11, 2015). "Trump: Death penalty for cop killers". Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved March 15, 2016.
  167. ^ a b Foderaro, Lisa (May 1, 1989). "Angered by Attack, Trump Urges Return Of the Death Penalty". The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2016.
  168. ^ Wright, David (April 21, 2016). "Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion". CNN.
  169. ^ a b de Vogue, Ariane (15 November 2016). "Trump: Same-sex marriage is 'settled,' but Roe v Wade can be changed". 60 Minutes. CBS. Retrieved 30 November 2016 – via CNN.
  170. ^ Gorman, Michele (May 20, 2016). "A brief history of Donald Trump's stance on gun rights". Newsweek.
  171. ^ Krieg, Gregory (June 20, 2016). "The times Trump changed his positions on guns". CNN.
  172. ^ McCarthy, Tom. "Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". The Guardian. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  173. ^ "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Advocate Bringing Back Waterboarding". ABC News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  174. ^ Levey, Noam (March 3, 2016). "Trump promised a 'beautiful' healthcare plan, but it's pretty basic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  175. ^ Kertscher, Tom. "Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  176. ^ Dale, Daniel (October 26, 2016). "Donald Trump said he has opposed Obamacare since 'before they even voted on it.' That is a lie". The Toronto Star.
  177. ^ "Trump's World View", Fox News (June 30, 2009): "Well, I think it's noble, except I just don't know how a country that's in such debt – we are really a debtor nation right now, and I just don't know how a country in this kind of trouble can afford it."
  178. ^ "Veterans Administration Reforms That Will Make America Great Again". Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. October 31, 2015. Retrieved November 1, 2015.
  179. ^ Levey, Noam (March 3, 2016). "Trump promised a 'beautiful' healthcare plan, but it's pretty basic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  180. ^ Kertscher, Tom. "Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  181. ^ Benen, Steve. "A conspiracy theorist and his powerful pals", MSNBC (December 3, 2015).
  182. ^ Shafer, Jack. "Did We Create Trump?", Politico (May 2016): "Trump's outrageous comments about John McCain, Muslims, the 14th Amendment and all the rest..."
  183. ^ Trump, Donald J.; Schwartz, Tony (1987). Trump: The Art of the Deal. Random House. p. 56. ISBN 978-0446353250. If you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.
  184. ^ Krieg, Gregory (September 16, 2016). 14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims – half from after 2011. CNN. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  185. ^ "Trump says Obama born in US, 'period' – after new 'birther' dust-up", Fox News Channel (September 16, 2016).
  186. ^ Maggie Haberman, Even as He Rises, Donald Trump Entertains Conspiracy Theories, The New York Times (February 29, 2016).
  187. ^ Moody, Chris; Holmes, Kristen (September 18, 2015). "Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim". CNN.
  188. ^ Colvin, Jill (January 6, 2016). "Trump joshes with audience over Muslim comments, Clinton". Associated Press.
  189. ^ Mahoney, Emily. "Fact Check: Donald Trump's claim on spaced-out vaccines, autism rate", Arizona Republic (October 16, 2015).
  190. ^ Krieg, Gregory J. (August 23, 2012). "Donald Trump Plays Doctor on Twitter". ABC News. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  191. ^ Pearce, Matt. "Scalia's death and lack of an autopsy bring out the conspiracy theorists", Los Angeles Times (February 16, 2016).
  192. ^ Qiu, Linda (May 6, 2016). "Anatomy of a talking point: Donald Trump on the JFK assassination". Tampa Bay Times. PolitiFact.com.

Moving towards consensus

Does the lack of recent comments on the working draft as currently amended mean that we have consensus or that nobody likes it? I feel that we should go ahead and push it to the article, as the current contents are seriously outdated and bludgeoned with campaign-related cruft. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 23:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have not reviewed that draft because I object to the entire idea of a such a wholesale replacement of material in this article, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Editors routinely spend weeks tweaking a couple of words. Dropping in such a mass of text is, in my opinion, not the way this article should be improved. I advocate incremental changes and therefore do not support this draft. Marteau (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed working draft removes far too much material. For example, Trump's entire position on the minimum wage is missing from the working draft. Surely that belongs in the "Economy" section. I sympathize with the idea that the "Fringe theories" are not really political positions, but they are very notable and need to be in the article. Even though it's awkward, I think "Fringe theories" fits best under "Political positions." -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: Feel free to add missing material by editing the working draft, that's why it's here. The goal is to build a broad summary, i.e. covering all major policy topics as tersely as possible. Details should go to Political positions of Donald Trump, which itself is already too long and should be split soon into three pages: Economic policy of Donald Trump, Domestic policy of Donald Trump and Foreign policy of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose such a gutting of an article. The mass simultaneous replacement of many sections is simply not how Wikipedia is meant to work. Continuous incremental improvement, with individual discussions if necessary - not "Oh, we talked about all of these changes (in one talk page section) and nobody objected so we have consensus..." It's a recipe for disaster and accusations of ownership. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: It just seems like there is a serious double standard among many editors (myself included, as shown by my !vote in this RfC) to want to include controversial material about Trump much more than any other president article does. This extends to the policy positions as well. The working draft should be able to remove the undue weight placed on his policy positions while still summarizing almost everything the article currently does. A lot of the removed prose in the working draft are merely quotes and statements from Trump, which can be more briefly covered by short, concise sentences. JasperTECH (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Lennyboi (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The redirect is correctly pointing to the artist. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate official website

Yesterday, I changed the official website to donaldjtrump.com, which is the official website of Donald J. Trump. I explained my reasoning in the above RfC. Dervorguilla just changed it to a website about the transition of Trump's presidency.

I contend that this is an inappropriate link for a biography, where the subject already has a well-known website. Also, editors in the RfC above were concerned that the transition website doesn't link to the subject's social media profiles. Using the correct link (donaldjtrump.com) neatly solves that issue as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I mean @realDonaldTrump, but that's a wider discussion for Template talk:Infobox person. In any case donaldjtrump.com is now an obsolete campaign website, not a contender for current official site of DJT. — JFG talk 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • List the .gov site = the only official Trump site. The page-info metadata emphasize the difference.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com - title: Donald J Trump for President
https://www.greatagain.gov - title: President Elect Donald J. Trump
Admittedly, his press people are still trying to provide some updated content for the old legacy campaign site. But we don't want to mislead readers about which site they should use as the source for complete, unaltered, official documents published on or after November 6. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions: 1. Can you provide a source that the .gov website is Donald Trump's official website? 2. I'm sure you realize that he will only be president-elect for another 51 days. Then what?- MrX 03:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: 1. No. 2. No idea. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla. then you shouldn't have changed it in the article. To do so without any reasoning is obnoxious.- MrX 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: 1. You must be kidding? 2. Probably www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump, we'll see what happens when he gets there. Today he is President-Elect, nothing is more official. — JFG talk 06:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, why must I be kidding? As far as I can tell, greatagain.gov is a temporary website. Hardly the type of website that should be official for a biography.- MrX 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that no third-party source would be required to confirm such an obvious statement that, in effect, the President-Elect's office is the official site of the President-Elect. Nothing personal :) And yes it's temporary but that makes it no less official and current; thankfully some editor will gladly update it the very minute whitehouse.gov adds a Trump bio (and we'll probably get some creative vandalism too; save the popcorn!) — JFG talk 15:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

Trumpmurt (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

proposing a change to a sentence in the final paragraph in the lead

existing: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

proposed: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 with a projected 306 electoral votes.

reason: Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote is something about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump. No other person is mentioned in the lead, so it seems out of place Hillary Clinton is mentioned. Any detail about people other than Donald Trump is best left to subsections. 216.165.192.26 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, mentioning Hillary Clinton while leaving out other candidates such as Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin seems to be highly disrespectful. The election wasn't limited to two persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.118.216 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been extensively discussed here. The consensus is that one of the historic things about his election is that this is only the fifth time in U.S. history that someone won the presidency without winning the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The popular vote means nothing. It does not determine presidential elections in the US. Popular vote is applied to the states + DC, never nationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.192.26 (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous discussion on the matter. The consensus seemed to be to follow the notable sources, and at that point, comparatively few sources were discussing that she won the popular vote (and her margin wasn't as high as it is now). Since then, however, there have been loads of notable articles written about that, so it's been put into the lead. JasperTECH (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one denies Hillary Clinton got more popular votes than any other candidate. National popular vote is irrelevant to the election. It does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the subsection. There are many trivia about the election other than Hillary Clinton having more popular vote than any other candidate. No trivia deserves to be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.118.216 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done In prior discussions, the balanced consensus was to include the fact that Clinton received a higher share of the popular vote and to leave out any statistics or historical trivia. The current phrasing accurately reflects this consensus, thus shouldn't be altered without a new open discussion. — JFG talk 04:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"simplifying the tax code with lower rates"

I hesitate to bring up any editorial point about this article but the above does not parse. It's not such a howler that I feel the need to change it right now in this contentious article, but ummm... one of these things does not lead to the other, as they say on Sesame Street. I think the intended meaning is that he has proposed simplifying the tax code AND lowering tax rates. Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done As the guilty party for this grammatical horror show, I have gladly updated the sentence according to your suggestion. — JFG talk 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the candidates ever sought to have the most popular vote. The popular vote is not a criterion for winning the election. Therefore, the sentence in the lead "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote." should be changed to "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who had more popular vote."

216.165.201.137 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Won the popular vote" is a quite common way to say it. Here is just one of many readily available using Google Search. In contrast, nobody says "had more popular vote". This has been exhaustively discussed on this page and the current language represents the consensus. The article does not state or imply that the popular vote tally has any bearing on the outcome of the election. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like received a larger share of the popular vote would be both more accurate and using common phrasing. Do you agree? The WordsmithTalk to me 22:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get what both you and Mandruss are saying, and I wouldn't take issue with either variant. I don't really know how you quantify which variant is more common, however. Dustin (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both being equally accurate, both being widely used, I see no reason to use the longer choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Mandruss, this does seem to relate to a point several supporters of Clinton point out, and the likelihood of the argument continuing seems to me unfortunately good. Maybe "received more popular votes" might be acceptable? John Carter (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should say "won the nationwide popular vote" or "earned most votes nationwide"? This would clarify the nationwide popular vote "winner" vs the popular vote winner by state who takes all state electors. Particularly important to distinguish for non-US readers who may be arguably puzzled at the Electoral College system and won't necessarily go read the dedicated article. — JFG talk 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's outside this article's scope to educate readers about the U.S. electoral system. That's why we have wikilinks; if a reader chooses not to follow them, they are actively opting to remain ignorant. We should say what our sources say. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely adding "nationwide" doesn't hurt and doesn't contradict the sources, does it? — JFG talk 22:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems superfluous, and I believe in avoiding superfluous words as a matter of encyclopedic principle. "It doesn't hurt" is never a good reason to include something; every word needs to earn its keep. One couldn't interpret "Clinton won the popular vote" as referring to the electoral vote without being contradicted by the fact that Trump is the person headed for the White House. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are plenty of sources which say she "won" the popular vote. Just as there are plenty of sources which say that "Clock Boy" "built" a clock, but we don't say that in our article, but instead we more precisely say he "reassembled the parts of a digital clock". We should, whenever possible, use the language with precision, and it is completely imprecise to say she "won" anything. "Winning" a thing requires a contest and there was no contest for achieving the most of the popular vote. I would favor saying she "achieved a plurality of the popular vote". Marteau (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a stickler for precise language, surely you won't mind me referring to the English dictionary. Of the five main definitions for "win", Merriam-Webster says one has anything to do with a contest.[20] The other four are alternative definitions of "win". Should we use the dictionary or defer to your superior knowledge of the English language? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you won't mind me pointing out that only one of those definitions applies in the given context, namely, the one with the word "contest" in it. Marteau (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many reliable sources agree that definitions 1 and 5 apply in this context. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote" is not appropriate. It's not something you "win". How about something like "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by earning a majority of Electoral College votes, although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the popular vote"? --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. You might include volume, when it's known. Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like, but no stats in lead please. — JFG talk 02:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence in the lead states "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote."

A win is only mandated by having a majority. In both the primaries and the general election, a candidate must have a majority of delegates or electors to win.

Hillary Clinton has under 50% of the national popular vote. She has plurality, but not majority. Even under a pure national popular vote system like in Russia and Ukraine, she does not win because she does not have majority.

So I'm not sure what is meant by she won the popular vote when clearly this is not the case.

216.165.201.137 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is being discussed at significant length above, actually, in possibly more than one section. However, I don't remember seeing the plurality/majority issue you mention here being specifically mentioned before in this context, and it is probably worth considering as well. I think the basic argument to date has been that (more or less) the phrasing duplicates that of the popular press which have frequently discussed the issue, and it isn't unreasonable for us to use the most commonly used phrasing used by other media, even if that phrasing is itself open to very serious questions regarding accuracy. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think "won the popular vote" is clumsy. She won more votes, a plurality of votes or 60+ million votes. TFD (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to most popular votes. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose changing "most popular votes" to "more popular votes" since the context is clear in comparing these two persons and no one else. Most is too ambiguous and it is not clear if most means plurality as in this case or majority. 216.165.201.137 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and changed it to "more". --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"won the popular vote" seems the predominant phrasing, and technically correct -- and also a bit false since I note that it's ironic to see "won" on the one who lost, and also that it is mentioned by Michael Moore here as a political ploy rather than a point of true concern or proposals underway. Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is completely undue and POV in Trump's lede. It might make sense in HRC's article, but not here. The fact is that DJT won. End of the story.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is only "technically correct" with qualification, and then only if the act of not attaining a majority is considered a "win". Completely pertinent is the fact that a majority is needed for a victory in electoral vote. If it were a three way electoral race and if Trump had, instead, gotten less than 50% of the electoral vote, he could not have been said to have "won" the electoral vote and the decision would go to congress. Marteau (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the wording I proposed above: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by earning a majority of Electoral College votes, although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the popular vote" ? Eliminates "won" which seems incorrect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is relevant/due in Trump's lede? This is not even Trump's campaign article.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I have made the change, let's see if it sticks… @Zigzig20s: It's relevant because it's being reported a lot in relation to the election. Omitting it would only raise more questions from readers. But we shouldn't dwell on it, just report sober facts. And there's only one winner, no matter how loud the loser's supporters scream "but she would have won if the rules were different". — JFG talk 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is totally undue in the lede of this article--which is about his entire life, not the campaign. HRC does not define his entire life; she is a footnote in his life. This could be included in the lede of the campaign article, but not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's a bit of recentism involved in the current consensus to keep this information (soberly) in the lead. This may fade out in a few months (or not, see George W. Bush), just like the pussy-grabbing thingie thankfully vanished a couple weeks after the vote. Isn't it fun that the Wikipedia consensus process has been strongly affirming that this particular controversy was just as lede-worthy in October as the "popular vote win" is now? In the same vein, nobody is complaining about limiting the TOC level any longer… Could this demand have had anything to do with promoting the section on sexual misconduct allegations? No neutral editor would ever think so! — JFG talk 14:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest changing "Clinton won the popular vote" to instead "Clinton earned more popular votes" which keeps the wordcount low, but eliminates the technical inaccuracy of 'winning' something not actually being directly contested. 'Earning' terminology is probably not found in tons of sources, but here are some.[21][22] And yes, I'm aware there are tons and TONS of perfectly fine sources that use the looser terminology, and say that politician X 'won' the popvote but lost the ecVote. Wikipedia ought to strive for accuracy, and saying 'earned' rather than 'won' will confuse nobody amongst the readership, whilst achieving that accuracy. As for the idea that Clinton's relative popvote performance should be elided, I would argue for keeping it here, in the biography -- it speaks to the relative unpopularity (historically speaking) of both major-party candidates up for election -- one of the defining features of this election cycle, is that both of the major-party candidates had extremely poor favorability (according to polling data (data which ain't necessarily as accurate as one might wish albeit!), and that lack of favorability is reflected in the relatively high numbers for third-parties, but also in the popvote/ecVote distinction. If it turns out to matter, in a historical sense, that Clinton got more popvotes, it will be during the 2018 midterms, when the larger dem-party mindshare earned in this cycle may result in significant movement in the House elections (the Senate map is almost guaranteed to give the repub-party some gains in 2018 however). Until then, the election-event itself certainly matters to the biographical subject here, and there is certainly plenty of coverage about Trump winning, yet the bulk of it almost without exception mentions that Trump-won-EC-but-Hillary-was-ahead-in-popvote, so in describing this major event in Trump's life, we should keep the caveat. For accuracy, though, I suggest we wikilink Trump's 'win' to the electoral college article, and wikilink Clinton's 'earned' (NOT 'won') to the criticism section of the electoral college article. I think parenthisizing the Clinton result, COULD be proper, but eliding it would be wrong -- the election was somewhat close, and the popvote-vs-ecVote difference gives the readership a hint about why. It belongs in the first or two, because winning the presidency is a defining moment of Trump's biography; whether the popvote-caveat will stay in the early bit, or will gradually fade, depends on what happens in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Until then, sources add the caveat, and we should also, just with a bit more accuracy. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources say "Clinton won the popular vote"? If so, then that's what we use. If they say "Clinton earned the majority of the popular vote" or something like that, then that's what we use. I think it's "win".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She did not get a majority of the popular vote. She got 48 point something percent, if I'm not mistaken. 38.121.94.148 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the "won" terminology is more general. Likewise, sources will say "Gore won the popular vote" or "candidates who lost the election but won the popular vote" etc. So it's perfectly fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, saying that Clinton 'won' the popvote is more generic, because the term is more ambiguous. Correct, many many sources use the ambiguous terminology. I'm arguing that this is a special case, where what the sources say is objectively incorrect in an encyclopedic sense; we can use a variation of 'earned' (rather than the commonplace but subtly flawed 'won'), since 'earned' is also used by solid sources; it is not-quite-as-generic, which makes is more accurate. See also, the discussion further down the page, where the Trump-'earned'-the-most-ecVotes-but-Clinton-'received'-more-popvotes version is being actively discussed. Although wikipedia wasn't really around in the immediate aftermath of the Bush v Gore election, didn't they have some kind of similar discussion at that article? Here is the current language: "...Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes... more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College, and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes..." Only Bush is described as 'winner/win' and Gore is described as 'received'. You could loosely say that Gore 'won' 48.84% of the certified FL popvote, and that nationally Gore 'won' 266 ecVotes, but wikipedia does not say those things because the terminology is too loose. Now in fairness, wikipedia DOES say in the USPE, 2000 article that "...the eventual winner failed to win the popular vote..." as opposed to the slightly more wordy but slightly more correct "...the eventual winner failed to get the most popular votes..." But in the most relevant biographical article wikipedia currently says "... elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide." Which says elected/received, rather than won/earned, but definitely does not use the flawed won/'won' imprecise language that the paparazzi typically utilize. The argument here is partly about whether or not wikipedia ought to use imprecise language, merely because most of the sources use that imprecise language, or if wikipedia can use slightly-more-precise language of received/earned/whatever, for the candidate that was not the winner-of-the-actual-election. There is no argument about what the sources say, the vast majority of them use the flawed metaphor of 'winning' to describe something for which there is no actual prize (whereas the 'earning' metaphor is correct in that earning support/mindshare/popvotes DOES matter in future cycles even though it does NOT actually win you any prize this cycle); thus, the argument is about whether the sources are implying something inaccurately, and whether wikipedia can do better, per pillars one and two, and if you insist also five. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, JFG - that phrasing didn't last long after "made the change, let's see if it sticks", and I thinkt 47.222 has some good points above on the use of 'won' and that the precedent in phrasing for the Bush case. (Older cases didn't mention it at all in lead, perhaps it just was not prominent.) I'll also suggest that the phrasing and adding numbers is getting a bit WP:OFFTOPIC -- going into Clinton or numbers of votes should be in the election article not the Trump article. (Sniffs a bit like WP:SOAPBOX here, as already mentioned by others in this TALK.), What do you think of following more to the Bush language "He was elected president after a close and controversial (strongly negative?) election, becoming the fifth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent."  ? Markbassett (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: Coincidentally I just pushed a general copyedit of the lead section the very minute you posted this comment. To your points:
  • I agree that we shouldn't say that Hillary Clinton "won" anything; there is no second prize and Wikipedia is not in the business of catering to the feelings of disappointed citizens.
  • Mentioning her larger share of the nationwide vote is notable and fair. Mentioning any numbers is undue because this is just Donald Trump's biography and numbers can go both ways (see my earlier remark on stats).
  • The comparison with Bush vs Gore has its limits: yes in both cases the winning candidate received fewer votes nationwide, but no 2016 was not a closely contested election (306 to 232 electors vs 271 to 266, a margin of 74 EV vs only 5). Coincidentally the winner carried 30 states vs 20 in both elections.
As part of my general copyedit, I restored the factual wording originally proposed by The Wordsmith and which looks consensual enough given this discussion: although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote. If there is constructive opposition to it (not just drive-by WP:RGW edits), we could settle the issue with an RfC, although I hope it won't be necessary. An alternate formulation could be although he received fewer popular votes nationwide than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. — JFG talk 08:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pro Hillary Clinton bias and incorrectness in the lead

Point 1: When voters vote in the general election in the US, they do not vote for the presidential candidates, as in most countries of the world. Instead, they vote for the electors of their states / DC. This is explicitly stated in the Constitution. No one in the US ever votes for candidates. Only the electors are voted on. It is incorrect to state Hillary Clinton got 65 million popular votes. Every candidate got exactly 0 popular votes.

I quote. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state's Electors.

source: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

I quote. Each presidential elector shall execute and file with the secretary of state a pledge that, as an elector, he or she will vote for the candidates nominated by that party. The names of presidential electors shall not appear on the ballots. The votes cast for candidates for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the candidates for presidential electors of that political party…

source: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.56.320

Point 2: We must ask, what is the purpose of mentioning Hillary Clinton having more popular vote in the lead? In my opinion it is nothing other than a pathetic attempt to illegitimize Donald Trump's election win.

Point 3: Hillary Clinton is the only person other than Donald Trump mentioned in the lead. This is extremely bizarre and out of place. Not even Donald Trump's parents and family members are mentioned in the lead. Any person or trivia that is not about Donald Trump himself should not be in the lead and should be in the subsections.

Furthermore, for the same reasons above, I propose George W Bush's wiki page modified to delete the incorrect statement that Gore had more popular vote than Bush did in the lead.

38.121.94.148 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what popular vote means. By definition, Gore received more votes ("popular" votes) than Bush, and the same likewise applies to Clinton vs. Trump but to a much greater extent. Dustin (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As my sources explain, the Democratic electors got more popular votes than the Republican electors did. Both Gore and Bush got exactly 0 popular votes. 38.121.94.148 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to reliable sources Clinton got X>0 popular votes, and Trump got Y>0 popular votes. Arguing semantics, or what have you, is covered under the Wikipedia policy of no original research.
We don't ask "what is the purpose". We only ask "is it covered in reliable sources".
The fact that Clinton is mentioned in the lede might have something to do with some election that Trump might have just participated in.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"electoral college. The body of electors chosen from each state to formally elect the U.S. President and Vice President by casting votes based on the popular vote." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.)
So: Trump won the popular vote in 30¼ states, lost the popular vote in 19¾ states, and won the electoral vote. Clinton won the popular vote in 19¾ states, lost the popular vote in 30¼ states, and lost the electoral vote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this reverted?

Why exactly was my addition reverted? It cites a reliable and neutral source, Politico, and it describes the political composition of Trump's cabinet so far and shows what people think about it. How is it an editorial, and how is it "inappropriate and UNDUE", as the reverting editor stated? Is there any way to improve it so it can be added? --1990'sguy (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reversion. It's subjective and undue weight. I don't think it should be included at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be relevant there. Also this article about the combined net worth of his cabinet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added both. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

picture

Please contribute to active RfC at #Trump Photo 2 Rfc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

his and hillarys needs to be SMILING! they both need to be happy! ok?? we cant be biased m8. @@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.32.87 (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of smile is no bias. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not smile. Please read numerous comments above at #Trump Photo 2 Rfc, and you may contribute your opinion there. — JFG talk 07:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titles for Trump

There have recently been a number of edits, from several different people, wanting to expand the description of Trump in the opening sentence. Up until today it has said he is "an American businessman, politician, and the President-elect of the United States." (I recall that before the election there was some opposition to calling him a "politician," but the election seems to have settled that.) But now today various people want to expand the lede sentence to include everything he has done: "businessman, actor, author, politician, and the President-elect of the United States". I submit that this is inappropriate. By the time a person is president elect, the fact that they have written books or appeared on TV becomes secondary. If you look at articles about recent presidents they omit all that stuff, even though they all wrote books, some of them best sellers; the lede sentence just says politician and president. "Barack Hussein Obama II (US Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/;[1][2] born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States." "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician who was the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009 and 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000." etc. In Trump's case I think "businessman" might still be included since it has been such an important part of his life - as for example the Dwight D. Eisenhower page says "politican and general". But I think we should leave out all the other stuff which, although true, has now been rendered less important. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Anyway, a bunch of cameo appearances does not an actor make. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has gone ahead and removed "actor" and "author" which IMO solves the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And then someone else changed it to "real estate developer and celebrity". We are going to have to keep an eye on this. I believe we have consensus for the current wording, "...is an American businessman and politician who is the President-elect of the United States." Let's continue to defend that wording. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should limit it to "American businessman, politician, and the President-elect of the United States."- MrX 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Businessman and politician is correct. Suggest linking businessman to the subsection about Trump's business ventures (which includes his real estate stuff, his books, his television, and his personalized brand aka his monetized celebrity status). Or could put a footnote I guess. I would actually tend to agree that politician does not belong, since although he is a politician NOW he has only ever been elected to one office, and POTUS is an atypical place for a 'politician' to begin. Trump does now self-identify as a politician (since winning the nomination in July if memory serves), but I think that "businessman and 45th president of the u.s." might be how things end up, a few months from now; as a president-elect one is a politician, though, so it is okay as businessman/politician/peotus. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Trump's life before politics has been 45 years real estate and 20 years TV. Both helped him become an effective communicator and win the election, hence both labels are notable and due for his intro sentence. I would even agree with replacing "businessman" by "real estate developer" because frankly his other businesses were inconsequential distractions. — JFG talk 08:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have reverted it to "businessman and politician who is president-elect..." That is more in line with what we have done with other articles about presidents, emphasizing the importance of the presidency over pretty much everything else they have done in their life. For example, the Jimmy Carter article does not say "peanut farmer and president". The presidents who were lawyers do not have "lawyer" in their title. But let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, except for my perennial gripe about the "is … who is" construct — JFG talk 22:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump received a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame and has twice been nominated for the Emmy award and is in the WWE Fall Of Fame. IMO these warrant him the title of actor and / or entertainment celebrity. 45.58.91.69 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this helps: I would suggest - is an American real estate developer and TV celebrity (rather than American Businessman and politician) .... I also disagree with the "is and who is" articles (and Ronald Reagan like articles, "was and who was"). Trump won the presidential election to be president not President-elect or politician. Carter - "is an American politician" (as if "politician" matters more than anything else in all such articles when it does not). Perhaps - is an American who was a state senator, governor, and the 39th President of the United States.... He is no longer a politician. YahwehSaves (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tax platform in lead section

In the lead section, I changed the sentence saying Trump's platform included "lowering tax rates" to "reducing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals," which is more in line with the body of the article and the reliable sources. ThaiWanIII, can you please explain why you undid this contribution without an edit summary? Generally speaking you should always include edit summaries, especially for reverts, and especially especially in articles subject to discretionary sanctions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you were already warned by an admit admin for this revert. My apologies for piling on. Please provide your explanation here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No "admit" warned me about anythingThaiWanIII (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 'platform' is a formalized or stated set of political goals. If the candidate or party does not say a thing, it is not part of their "platform" Sources can say the AFFECT of his platform is the reduction of "taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals" but that is not his platform... but that is not his "platform" because it is not a stated goal. I am going to change the lead to reflect that distinction. Should someone wish to add something along the lines of "...the affect of which would be to lower taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals" that would be fine. Here is his tax plan which says his goal is "Reduce taxes across-the-board" Marteau (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that really puts us in a bind. The top line of that donaldjtrump.com page says Trump would "Reduce taxes across-the-board, especially for working and middle-income Americans who will receive a massive tax reduction," but the reliable sources say his plan would do no such thing. How do we convey this information neutrally--or at a minimum not mislead our readers--in the limited space of the lead section? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The gory details of Trump's campaign platform (aka campaign promises) is not really important for the biography article. It is historically interesting info, but was put into the intro-paragraphs because wikipedia suffers from recentism. It *does* make sense in the Trump'16 article (and subsidiaries thereof), of course, with as much gory detail as is needed to cover the exact promises made at various points, the analysis thereof, the evolving if any during the general election campaign versus the primaries and so on. My gut instinct is that we ought to cover the major campaign promises here in the biography, without too much emphasis on debunking every sentence... because in point of fact, what will matter is when the actual Super Duper Tax Legislation Act of 2017 finally passes, and then economists use econometrics to evaluate the actual consequences, and then pundits/historians compare the real-world outcomes to the campaign promises, and then either repubs are re-elected in 2020 or get beaten like a drum. So to answer your question, it is pretty much impossible to convey Trump-promised-this-then-somebody-said-that-about-it-then-Trump-made-this-slightly-different-promise as part of the biographical introduction. We should have a couple sentences about winning the repub-nom (endorsements&funding + debates&platform + primary&caucus&convention), then we should have a couple sentences about winning the general (unity&funding + debates&scandals + popvote&ecVotes), in a subsection. The rest of the gory details belong in other articles. Look at Barack Obama#Presidential_campaigns, how many sentences are devoted to debunking campaign'08 promises there? Zero. He only gets half a sentence of his ultra-major campaign promises ("rapidly ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and reforming the health care system"). No debunking of failed promises in the subsection, no mention of campaign promises whatsoever in the lead of the biography! 42 words in the intro about the 2008 campaign: mentions he beat Hillary Clinton with delegates in the primaries and beat John McCain in general, no further details whatsoever. Same for Trump, someday -- eventually we will return closer to neutrality, and highlight the major issues Trump specifically emphasized (winning trade-deals, fixing immigration policy, theEconomy/jobs/taxes/nationalDebt/deregulation/etc, improving ethics in DC, ignoring political correctness... I'm not sure what the final list is but that is somewhat close) in a subsection. If and when some of the campaign promises become long-standing issues *during* his presidency, then they will get more weight in his biographical sketch here on wikipedia, as part of covering the presidential term. But trying to re-litigate the campaign itself, in the biographical article lead paragraphs, is counterproductive. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500

This must be included as well: Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500, Winning 83% Of The Geographic Nation.[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.159.75 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to include not only the statistic but also the reason why (that writer feels) it's significant: "The president-elect accomplished something unprecedented by ranking in the top three most popular candidates while maintaining a drastic county-level lead over Clinton." My opinion: Yawn. Oppose per WP:DUE, barring more RS coverage, at least in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the story originated on Inquistr, a news aggregator that looks like a gossip site. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous items in the biography where we don't express "the reason why that writer feels it's significant". Also, this is not "gossip", this is fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though Clinton's counties are a majority of the population and 2/3 of the GDP (not all counties are created equal, after all). But none of that is here nor there. Getting into the weeds of who voted how and where might be appropriate to one of the election sub-articles, but I can't imagine it being prominent enough to justify inclusion here. Dragons flight (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles County has 9.8 million residents. Loving County in Texas has 82 residents. Difficult to find meaning is such a stat. Objective3000 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the first place, this is meaningless. We do vote by states, but we do not vote by counties (some of which have a larger population that some states). In the second place, this statistic has not been widely reported by Reliable Sources and thus does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Counties are not units of the electorate.- MrX 16:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are going to make that argument, neither is the popular vote...ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – For stats lovers, there are plenty of beautifully-detailed maps at United States presidential election, 2016#Maps. For the Donald Trump main bio, this is undue. — JFG talk 16:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was reported on a national level by numerous reliable sources, including CNN, Washington Post, Fox, Huffington Post, et all and is a revealing demographic, as is our coverage of the popular vote. We have a dedicated section for Protests, which had nothing to do with election results either, yet we're being told we can't even mention this demographic in the election section, made for the express purpose of covering the election and notable topics related to it? In main articles we cover the notable facts -- if there is a sub-article for the topic, we cover it in depth, which doesn't mean we can't even mention it here. Again main articles and sub articles commonly have a certain amount of informational overlap. We can't keep blocking things in this biography simply on the basis that there is a sub-article for it. If this idea was practiced on such a basis consistently then this biography would be reduced to a few short paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not important for this article. For this article, the facts needed are: 1. He won EC. 2. More voters (2.5 million) voted for Clinton. Casprings (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winning the vast majority of the counties across the nation is a fact, and a revealing demographic, as is the popular vote. "Not important" is an opinion. If such facts are reported nationally by numerous reliable sources than we can do so. We'll need more than personal opinion to block this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about more versus less commented on by WP:RS. It is certainly true the urban versus rural divided has been commented on. See the NY Times The Election Highlighted a Growing Rural-Urban Split. However, the commentary is about the division within the US. The fact that more voters wanted Clinton has been produced multiple pieces of commentary regarding the legitimacy of the EC and the fact that the result is undemocratic. See, here or here. I do not deny that the urban versus popular vote divide is important in an article on the election. But for this article, the fact that more voters wanted someone else is important because it hits at fundamental questions about the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency. Moreover the amount of people who wanted someone else (2.5 million) is historic.Casprings (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Casprings: Wikipedia is not the place to call the US electoral process "undemocratic". This is outrageous and totally undermines your argument. — JFG talk 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with JFG here. Though you opposed inclusion, I thank you for your comments here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: To say that a process that allows someone with less votes to assume an office is undemocratic is a statement of fact. The power of the office and the amount of the difference(2.5 million) makes that fact historic and significant.Casprings (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not by definition. Which makes it a political opinion and not proper to state here. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See DemocracyCasprings (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence. Parliamentary governments are democratic. But, the people do not directly elect the PM. Governments where the head of state is directly elected by a popular vote are rare. Objective3000 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a British style first past the post election system, it would be extremely rare for the party that received less votes to elect the PM. With the type of margin in this election, it would not happen.Casprings (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it is rare here, which is why it's important to mention the pop vote in the lead. In Israel, it's not at all rare. But, were getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Casprings: At first I thought you were partisan, now it occurs to me that you may just be uneducated, which is an easier problem to solve. If you are an American citizen, go read about the history of your country. If you are not, I recommend Tocqueville's historic essay De la démocratie en Amérique (1835) where this French aristocrat praised the nascent United States for their admirable practice of democracy, which frankly the French had botched at the time (bloody revolutions, unstable republics, Napoleon's empire, return of monarchy…). The Electoral College was already there. Direct election by nationwide popular vote is *not* the dominant form of democracy, nor should it be, as it over-represents the already-dominant sectors of a polity. I could quote many faults of the US democratic system; this is not one of them. — JFG talk 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial discretion via consensus is what determines what goes in the article. This quirky piece of data has almost zero relevance to Trump's bio because elections are not decided by who won the most counties, the most cities, or the most corn fields. This is nothing more than trivia.- MrX 18:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Counties enormously vary in physical size (28 sq mi to 20,000 sq mi) as well as population (82 to 9.8 million). Some counties contain multiple cities, some no cites, New York City (not counting suburbs) is in five counties. Over 100 counties have a larger population than the state of Wyoming. Two states don't even have any counties. Historically, a county was a jurisdiction under a count. Basically, the term is too fuzzy to have any statistical meaning. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the country is comprised of counties. Consensus can't go against policy, esp NPOV. The national media, used to cite "denial" claims, didn't think it was "fuzzy" and presented the idea as a revealing demographic which helps to explain where most of Trump's and Clinton's voters reside. This info should be welcomed. So far it appears that most of the reasons to block this perspective is because of opinion, i.e."quirkey, fuzzy". We're supposed to be writing for an encyclopedia where the more intelligent and inquisitive reader comes for information, not for 'People' magazine. No solid reason has been presented to exclude this perspective from the Election ' section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can't go against policy, esp NPOV. Consensus decides what goes against policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So if five editors want to put a picture of Santa Clause in place of Trump's picture and three do not... Ho ho ho?? I don't think so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean a direct count of !votes. Wikipedia is clearly not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Objective3000 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If five editors propose to use a picture of Santa Clause [sic] in the infobox, let us know and we can go from there. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, O'3000. Yes, other factors must be considered besides 'democracy'. Like NPOV, policy overall, balance and inclusion of 'all' the important facts. Seems like several are missing in the Climate change section (and elsewhere), smoothed over by obtuse, misleading and highly opinionated POV terms like "denial". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In terms of elections, counties are not a very meaningful political boundary other than election boards. MSAs would be better imho. But I've not seen this county factoid widely covered by the RS, unlike the popular vote. On that alone, inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This sounds like a way to make it seem like the election was a blowout for Trump, when it wasn't. Not every county has the same population. According to the 2010 census, Los Angeles County, California has 9,818,605 people, while Loving County, Texas has 82 people. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An additional problem here is lack of context. Do we know how the counties split in 2012? In 2008, 2004, 2000? Do we know if this result is unusual or commonplace? Personally I suspect they ALWAYS split heavily toward the Republican candidate; that's just the nature of our electorate and our geography. In any case, this statistic is worthless without any information about whether it is historic or routine. That's in addition to the fact that it means nothing anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repubs have won supermajorities of the counties in recent decades, since they are currently the preferred party of the non-urban-core voter (broad brush here), but historically the dems were that party (e.g. dem-nom William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska was a champion of the poor indebted midwestern-and-southern[25] farmer), with *repubs* being the urban-coast-party -- NYC was a repub stronghold until "recently". The counties-won-percentage is an indicator of party strength more than candidate-strength (especially at the state-by-state-level), but can sometimes be illuminating.[26][27][28][29] But of course there are also plenty of incorrect datasets out there, which magnify the demographic differentials.[30] So to partially answer your question, in 2008 it was around~72% of the known-counties for McCain,[31], in 2012 it was around~78% for Romney, whereas in 2016 it was around~83% for Trump. I'd be more interested in seeing the totals for Reagan and for FDR, but didn't find those in a quick search (propublica only gives maps sans the datasets that I could tell). Valuable info methinks, but more for an article comparing party strengths across the years, not for a biographical article about one candidate. Of course, I also think the "by over 2.5 millions votes" stuff is pretty silly for a biography article on the opposing candidate; the numeric value is not very relevant, since if the rules were different then the campaigns would have been run differently and the outcome under such counterfactual conditions is pretty much impossible to predict.[32] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks. So that suggests that, using the three data points we have, this election merely continued the straight-line trend toward Republican dominance on a county-by-county basis. (72-78-83) In other words, nothing startling or historic. And not a statistic that has been collected, or talked much about, over the history of the country. Because (I'll say it again) it isn't meaningful. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the popular vote 1) has only given a different result from the Electoral College (and thus actual) result five times in the history of the Republic, and 2) is being widely, widely reported - as opposed to this county stuff, which may have been mentioned here or there when the pundits ran out of other things to talk about. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - yah, this is a noted item, particularly in trying to explain the surprise win, and noting the division oddity about the election that even in the 20 vs 30 states she won like California she lost most of the counties, and/or that even in Republican strongholds like Texas she was surprisingly close, a narrative that it was a strongly cities versus rural division. But really I think this is about the same boat as Electoral vs Popular -- all this stuff should get be in the election article and not the Trump article. But if this article is going to include those items then yes include this part too. Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Facts are neutral in of themselves. Where are you getting "manufactured statistic" from? (Answer please.) Again, mentioning the counties Trump won are an informative demographic revealing to the reader that many of Clinton's votes came from urban and inner city areas. The 'counties won' by Trump and Clinton can be mentioned with just a sentence. Why would you want to keep this perspective from the readers? So far the reasons to oppose are wholly academic and opinionated. e.g."not neutral" and the "manufactured" claim seems to be manufactured itself. Again, if this methodology continues and prevails in the narrative we'll have to tag the entire article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Gwillhickers, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Possibly also WP:FLOG. Trump won the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote by 2.5 million, making completely unsubstantiated claims about "millions" of fraudulent voters in the process. Those facts are notable and worthy of inclusion. The fact that Trump won the rural vote and lost the urban vote is worthy of inclusion. The fact that Trump won thousands of counties when many of them have populations smaller than some apartment buildings really isn't notable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edit to opening paragraph regarding Trump's election

Propose the following changes to the opening:

ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED Text

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning a majority of the Electoral College, while Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by winning a majority of the Electoral College, while Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received over 2.5 million more votes.

Rationale for change.

1. WP:Concise. Sentence is shorter and also provides the reader with more context.

2. The context here is important and widely commented on by WP:RS. See the Boston's Globe A legitimacy crisis for our democracy, Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump in popular vote passes 2.5 million, etc. This is essential context because this large of a gap between who is taking power and the amount of votes received by that person is extremely rare and cuts to the legitimacy of that person taking power. To me, this seems like needed context that could be inserted in a concise way and might help a reader outside of the US better understand Donald Trump and his upcoming Presidency.Casprings (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning the popular vote delta as proposed. One style change that I would recommend would be to change "earning" to "winning".- MrX 17:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Casprings (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is good. It manages to be both concise and more informative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this reads better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is Donald Trump's biography page. "How much he lost the popular vote by" is not important enough, in his biography, to put in the lede, although it should be in the Election Results section and in the various Election articles. The lede here needs only to note the historic fact that he won the presidency while his opponent got more nationwide popular votes. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In any case, the proposed text would need to say "nationwide popular votes". "More votes" by itself is ambiguous to the point of being confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Casprings (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – If we start quoting numbers in the lead, why not mention the electoral college margin of 306 vs 232? Or Trump winning 30 states vs Clinton's 20? Imagine the text: Trump won a whopping 50% more states than his opponent, a much wider margin than Barack Obama's two terms. The list goes on. Any number sounds immediately partisan; better keep stats out of the lead. — JFG talk 23:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update While we debate, the sentence has been replaced by these two sentences: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by obtaining the required majority of Electoral College votes. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who lost the election to Trump, received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote." That's actually pretty good. MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The magnitude of the gap is only meaningful if we know how many votes were cast in total. I do not see either why we should mention the opponent's name in the lead. TFD (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While we debate, I think the proposal got put in and then overwritten already OBE maybe moot, but for the record ... make it he won while having fewer popular votes -- it's his article so phrase it as a statement of Trump, not a Hillary statement. The details about numbers and such should be in the election article, not here. Markbassett (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its better now. I don't know why "Trump won the presidential election by earning a majority of the electoral college" has to be there when earned is not common or necessary. Instead, by getting, gaining, or obtaining a majority of the electoral college seems better to me, and not bias somehow. YahwehSaves (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section in transition (Taiwan and conflicts of interest)

I would suggest two major topics need to be added to the transition section. I would draft them myself, but I am away from a computer.

1. A subsection needs to be added about him talking to the President of Taiwan. This is a huge break with US policy. We should add this to the lede, as this is very historical.

2. A section on his ongoing conflicts of interest.

Casprings (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on both. A single phone call is not lede worthy (if he does end up changing US policy in the long run that is another matter), and the conflict of interest is as you say, ongoing, and thus not ready for wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS. Athenean (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait a bit, shall we? This story is only a couple hours old. Perhaps it may become lead-worthy... after all, Obama going against decades of policy regarding Cuba is in his lead section, so there is precedent. Marteau (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: wait.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He just broke a 40 year tight rope of us policy regarding Tawain and China. It's lede worthy and more historically significant then anything in the article. What happens in his presidency might push it out. But at this point, nothing he has done is more important.Casprings (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that there looks to be a conflict of interest here as the Trump organization apprears to be trying to expand in Tawain. You also have a conflict of interest. Something that risks wars, both real and trade, with a conflict of interest is historically huge.Casprings (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What we know so far is he accepted a phone call, and that pundits are concerned. That is hardly lead worthy. Marteau (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that more than pundits are concerned. But, it's still not lead-worthy. Objective3000 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More like people with some knowledge of US-China relations over Taiwan. We know that China has gave the US a formal complaint. https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d Casprings (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see how the story develops. Is it "a huge change in a 40-year policy", or a simple error of judgment - accepting a congratulatory call (note that she called him, he did not call her) without realizing its implications? Will China make a huge deal out of it or brush it off? At this point we don't know how important this is going to turn out to be. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: China hasn't called it a "huge" change in policy, nor has Trump. Also, it turns out that he asked her to call him. Also, it may not be wise to describe anything Trump says or does as an "error in judgment". This is perhaps the ultimate take-home lesson from the Incident of 11/8. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this escalates it: China has filed an official protest. However the Chinese foreign minister said it was "just a small trick" by Taiwan that he believes will not change U.S. policy. Meanwhile Trump has shrugged it off. This needs to be covered somewhere, but maybe not in this BLP article. It would require an UNDUE amount of detail. Definitely in the transition article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in the Transition article, and in fact none of the newsworthy incidents during this transition period are included there. It just seems to be about planning for the new administration. Anyone have any idea where this important story COULD be placed? --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a pretty good hunch that it should be placed in /dev/null because we are WP:NOTNEWS. Haven't we learned a lesson during this campaign that we should refrain from documenting every Trumpian tweet and every gasp from pundits? WP:FART comes to mind, if that were not a serious subject… — JFG talk 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to be disciplined about making sure these controversies have some retrospective historical weight (actual, not media-hyped) before placing then in this article. I suggest starting a WP:SPINOFF article: Controversies of Donald Trump's Presidency, and then only including a summary of the major controversies here after they are shown to have significant impact and sustained coverage in the media.- MrX 13:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Above I suggested it wasn't lead-worthy and stay with that opinion. But, the NYTimes has over a page on this today. It's likely to end up somewhere in WP. Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, rather this was a result of him being unprepared and his staff not ready for prime time or if this is a shift in policy, it is by far the most historic thing to happen during his transition.Casprings (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By historic, I assume you mean unprecedented. Only time will tell if it's historic. It may turn into a big deal in our relations with China, or it may just be one in series of foreign relations gaffes soon to unfold.- MrX 13:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And whichever way it turns out, there will be a cabal of editors saying "No, we shouldn't cover this, it's not newsworthy", or "it's too newsworthy and WP:NOTNEWS", or some variation on "Nothing possibly critical of Trump is allowed!" BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This really is not useful. And, I don't remember a bunch of claims of Nothing possibly critical of Trump is allowed. Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No? Look harder. We've had RfCs to keep out mention of then upcoming court cases! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a specific case, talk about it in a section on that case. Making a broad-based prediction and complaint of future poor behavior is not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Just a follow-up since my last section was archived. Trump's current signature can be found on a most recent document from November 2016 here. We need to use the current signature – regardless of whether or not you can read it or not. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 11:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't "need to". Your proposal was discussed and overwhelmingly rejected; there is no point is reviving it just weeks later. — JFG talk 12:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, they look about the same to me, at least by signature standards. The second one uses a fatter pen, and to my eye it seems a little less resolvable, but I don't see the importance one way or the other. Wnt (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JFG. Your previous thread had a fair amount of participation and was close to a SNOW fail. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JFG and Mandruss. Have you found a policy that says "current" = better? In most scholarly work, the currency of a source is no more important than its authoritativeness or its accuracy and verifiability. Also important: How helpful to the reader is the cited information? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When he was owner of New Jersey Generals

Other ventures Sports events "In 1983, Trump's New Jersey Generals became a charter member of the new United States Football League (USFL). " He did own the team until after the 1983 USFL season. Walter Duncan? from Oklahoma was the owner of the Generals during the 1983 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.80.163 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tidbit. Do you happen to have a published source documenting this? — JFG talk 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found this.[1] Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Markazi, Arash (14 July 2015). "5 things about Donald Trump's USFL adventure". ESPN.com. Retrieved 4 December 2016.

[33] [34] Sept 22, 1983 after the season

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

Hello, please correct in the first sentence the false "is an American businessman," to "is a German American businessman," or "European American businessman,". Thank you for writing a free encyclopedia, you are awesome! 78.52.48.124 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Trump is neither German nor European, nor am I aware of reliable sources that refer to him this way.
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 12:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy

The removal of the section on foreign policy change is very arbitrary and biased as it prevents the readers from forming the right perspective on the topic, the sources cited are reliable and contain appropriate citations relevant to the content. If somebody disagrees, he will have to prove that the sources are unreliable and that the quotes provided are not genuine. --Reollun (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of your edits (I haven't looked in detail), the appropriate article would be Political positions of Donald Trump, soon to be split into three pages including Foreign policy of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 02:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the material. Here it is:
During a 'Thank You' rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, Trump announced a new approach to foreign policy, vowing to destroy ISIS, but also stating that the US will stop 'looking to topple foreign regimes and overthrow governments'
In fact, it is not a "new approach" to want to destroy ISIS, and it has long been Trump's ambition to do so. It also not new to not look to topple foreign regimes and overthrow governments.
As to source reliability, I see no evidence that trendingissue.com is a reliable source at all. There's no indication that they are under editorial control, or that they have established a reputation for fact checking. It has as much credibility as a personal blog as far as I can tell. Washington Examiner is a questionable source (see this and these). It certainly is not a source that should be relied on for material in a prominent biography (see WP:BLPSOURCES). The CBS New source does not support the material.- MrX 02:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with JFG. As for the sources, that can be easily remedied, if the two sources aren't reliable, there are other sources which support the content. The wording can also be changed, but I don't see why not include his position on this particular issue. The statement he gave is very relevant and I think it should be included in some of the future sections regarding Trump's foreign policy.

--Reollun (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something out there in reliable sources that say he has devised a policy with some substance behind it, then I'm all for including it in the political positions article. - MrX 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

There is a sentence somewhere about Trump's birther claims. It says that he falsely claimed that Hillary started it. This may very well be the case but it can be argued by both sides and it is therefore an opinion. Simply remove the word falsely and let the reader make up their own mind. Akgx99977 (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any prose Nazis lurking about?

Opinions about the use of a bulleted list for cabinet nominations at Donald Trump#Presidential transition?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=753205956"