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 71.91.30.188 (talk) at 02:59, 19 December 2016 (→Close early?). 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

Appearances on WP:TOP25

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensuses and RfCs

Current consensuses:

1. Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link 1)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link 1)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link 1)

Open RfCs:

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]

  • Support per WP:ELOFFICIAL LavaBaron (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Summoned by bot. I am with Coretheapple no this one - Trump's made it pretty apparent that social media is the most effective way for him to get his message across to the people of the world. While I think it may be inappropriate to cite his social media in the body of the article, I think at the very least it is worth having his social media accounts listed as external links at the bottom of the page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's useful for people to have links to his social media there, so they don't have to go to his website. It would only add a few lines, and wouldn't crowd anything up. Adotchar| reply here 21:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Twitter, given the amount of coverage it receives. Oppose for the remainder as there's been no substantive argument for why they are in any way remarkable. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:ELOFFICIAL trumps WP:ELNO#social (no pun intended). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards qualified "support" because it's already clear that these newsfeeds will be favoured over traditional news briefings to journalists. Thus we are almost certainly witnessing a structural change. However, I wouldn't want the use of such links in this article to be a carte blanche for adding them all over the place. What about a formal trial period of, say, six months, with a review on this talkpage at that time? Just one question for the technically informed here: are such link targets stable? Tony (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Twitter. I agree with the supporters about the relevance to the subject's biography due to the extensive usage of the website and the notoriety of the posts made on it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for twitter. Trump's use of twitter should be discussed in the article. It is part of many of the key themes of the campaign, and continues to be a unique aspect of his communication with the American electorate. Linking it is linking a unique primary document, rather than a dogpile list of links. Oppose adding facebook, et al. for the rationale that they did not play this unique role. I understand the WP:ELIMOFFICIAL arguments and respect them and, to be sure, I agree I wouldn't want it to be precedent for other pages, but, again, Trump's twitter is unique. Chris vLS (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Summoned by bot. As Chris vLS noted, I too understand the WP:ELNO argument however, the policy does state that we should "generally avoid" providing external links to social networking sites. "Generally avoid" gives some flexibility for situations like this. Because Trump has specifically stated that he intends to use his social media accounts as a means to communicate with the public, this is absolutely relevant and his accounts are worth linking. What harm does it do including them? Meatsgains (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support . We always give the official or principal social media account, regardless of the importance or unimportance of the person,so we unquestionably should do so here. Whether we should include others, depends on their significance; we don't do it as a matter of course. We frequently do for entertainment figures, or others whose media presence is a large part of their importance, so I consider it appropriate here also. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Twitter, with other social media to be examined on a case by case basis. Mr. Trump uses his social media accounts, Twitter in particular, as instruments for direct communication with the public. He has already made important announcements regarding the form of his future administration and foreign policy via this means. IMHO WP:NOEL was not intended to be applied as strictly as some of the oppose votes seem to believe. Given the degree to which he uses it, and what it is being used for I think failing to link at least his twitter account would violate both longstanding precedent and commonsense. For those appealing to a more rigorist interpretation of NOEL we could also cite WP:COMMONSENSE. Further, I endorse the above comments by Chris vLS and DGG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Twitter for now, as being plainly relevant and a high profile presence. Oppose the others as much less significant. Trump is known for his Tweets. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as to Twitter. As per other commenters, his user of Twitter is a matter of considerable news attention. This is what External Links is for. Neutral as to other social media. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, link spam and promotional advertising for a particular purpose, violates WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctantly support inclusion of twitr (only), due to exceptional special circumstances. Primary official website of Donald Trump is www.donaldjtrump.com, but only since early 2015.[18] It existed since 2007, but as a private website and/or email-only domain name,[19] and thus as a *website* has always and only been a campaign-website, not a personal official page. Primary official website of Presidential transition of Donald Trump is www.greatAgain.gov, but only since November 2016. Primary official website of The Trump Organization is www.trump.com -- but none of these (donaldjtrump/greatagain/trump.com) currently link to his twitr and fbook feeds. Nor have they ever done so, that I could tell. With beyonce we link only to www.beyonce.com, because her main website links to her social media accounts. With Tom Hanks we do NOT link to his official website (he may not have one), and we do NOT link to his 12m-follower twitr nor his 7m-likes fbook ... which is probably INCORRECT because although those are not encyclopedic content, neither in beyonce.com! ELs are supposed to be "helpful to the reader, minimal [in number], meritable, and directly relevant". Linking to Tom Hanks's fbook-or-twitr would be helpful (readers would want it), minimal (no official website), and directly relevant (about Hanks), but might not be "meritable" since they are technically unofficial (albeit blue-check-verified) and violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10. So what is the deciding factor? Sources almost never mention that Tom Hanks has a twitr URL, google-news search returns 24 hits.[20] Donald Trump is a similar case: effectively he has no official website (despite his corp-job site and his guv-job site and his campaign-site) which links to his twitr, and if anything realDonaldTrump *is* the closest thing he has to an official website. Linking to Trump's twitr would be minimal (because no 'official' one links to it), as well as directly relevant and 'helpful' to the readership (they will want it). And there is merit, which overrides LINKSTOAVOID#10 and the unofficial nature, because google-news has 1400+ hits.[21] Reliable sources pay attention to Trump's twitr feed, but not to Tom Hanks's twitr feed. Since no "official" Trump website links to his twitr, and since his twitr is close to being his quasi-official internet homepage, we should link to it. Still support keeping www.greatagain.gov as the infobox-link (until January when it will become whitehouse.gov) since that is what MOST readers will be here looking to find, but the twitr should be in the EL section... and probably as the first external link, followed by his transition-team-link www.greatagain.gov (his twitr is ALL about him whereas the transition team is mostly about cabinet-picks and only secondarily about Trump qua Trump). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a vehicle for BLPs to use "as instruments for direct communication with the public". Jschnur (talk) 00:56, 19 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's campaign tax plan called for levelling the corporate tax rate to 15%, eliminating various business loopholes and deductions,[57] and reducing the number of brackets for personal income tax: the top rate would be reduced from 39.6% to 25%, a large "zero bracket" would be created, and the alternative minimum tax and estate tax (which currently applies to individual estates over $5.45 million or $10.9 million per married couple) would both be eliminated.[58] His comments about the minimum wage have been inconsistent.[59][60][61]

Many economists have been critical of Trump's economic policies,[62][26][23] with several reports assessing that his campaign plan would increase tax rates for families earning between $20,000 to $200,000 a year,[63][64] cause long-term job losses and recession,[22][24][27] and significantly increase the federal debt.[65]

Trump identifies as a "free trader",[42][66][67] but has often been referred to as "protectionist"[68][69][70] because of his criticism of NAFTA,[71][72] the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),[52] and his proposal to raise tariffs on Chinese and Mexican exports to the United States significantly.[73][74]


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.[75][76] 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.[77][78] 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."[79] Trump opposes birthright citizenship.[80]

In late August 2016, Trump hinted he might soften his position calling for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants.[81][82] 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.[83] 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.[84] He said the focus of the task force would be criminals, those who have overstayed their visas, and other "security threats".[85]

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.[86][87][88] 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".[89][90][91][92][93] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[94]

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.[95][76] Trump vows to build a wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, promising that Mexico will pay for it.[77][96] He would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S.[79]

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.[97][87][98] 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".[89][99][100][92][93] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[101]


Climate change

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[102][103] repeatedly saying that global warming is a "hoax".[104][105] Trump has called the EPA a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[106] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[107] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[108] 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.[109] 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.[110]

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.[111][112]

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.[113] His appointed advisers favor a less regulated energy market and do not think the threat of climate change requires immediate action.[114]

Trump doesn't accept the scientific consensus on climate change.[102][115] In 2012 he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but later said that he was joking.[104][116] He has called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[117] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[107] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[118] and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries.[109]

However, after winning the presidency, Trump admitted "some connectivity" between human activity and climate variability and said he has an "open mind" towards the Paris agreement.[119] On December 5, 2016, Donald and Ivanka Trump invited prominent climate change activist Al Gore to a private meeting.[120]


Education

Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools.[121] He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools,[122] and has called Common Core "a disaster" that must be ended.[123] He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education.[124]

Education

Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools.[125] He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools,[122] and has called Common Core "a disaster" that must be ended.[126] He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education.[127]


Foreign policy

Trump has been described as non-interventionist[128][129] and nationalist.[130] 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).[131] He supports increasing United States military defense spending,[130] but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[132] He says America should look inward, stop "nation building", and re-orient its resources toward domestic needs.[129] He questions whether he, as president, would automatically extend security guarantees to NATO members,[133] and suggests that he might leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance.[134] 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][135]

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.[136] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][137][138] a position he retracted.[139] 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".[140][141] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[142] 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."[143] He supports Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.[144]

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.[145][146] 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.[145][147]

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."[148][149]

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.[147] Since 2004, he has repeatedly criticized the war, especially during the primary debates with Jeb Bush.[150][151]

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.[152] He supports keeping a limited number of United States troops there.[152] Trump was a strong supporter of the 2011 military intervention in Libya at the time.[153][154] He has since then reversed his position several times, saying finally in June 2016 that he would have supported "surgical" bombing against Gaddafi.[153][154][155]

Trump would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia.[156][157] He added that Russia could help the United States in fighting ISIS militants.[158] In the same interview, Trump sarcastically[159] stated that he hoped Russia would unearth Hillary Clinton's missing emails from her time as Secretary of State.[160]

Foreign policy

Trump has been described as non-interventionist[128][129] and nationalist.[130] He has repeatedly stated that he supports "America First" foreign policy by increasing military defense spending[130], but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[161]

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.[162] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][163][164] a position he retracted.[165] 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.[166]


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.[167] 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".[168] Trump has stated that he supports "traditional marriage".[104] He opposes the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide[104][169][170] and believes the decision should be left to individual states.[169] Trump had stated that if he were elected, he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices that would overturn the ruling.[171]

Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general,[172] although his views have shifted over time.[173] He supports fixing the federal background check system so that criminal and mental health records are always put into the system.[174] Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana.[175] Trump favors capital punishment.[176][177]

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,[178] but said he is committed to appointing justices who want to change the ruling in Roe v. Wade.[179] He personally supports "traditional marriage"[104] but considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.[179]

Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general,[180][174] although his views have shifted over time.[181] Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana.[175] He favors capital punishment,[176][177] as well as the use of waterboarding, a form of torture.[182][183]


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.[184] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[185] In October 2016 he falsely said that he had said the ACA was a "disaster" since before it was passed by Congress.[186] He said in June 2009 that he loved the idea, but questioned whether the country could afford it.[187][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.[188]

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.[189] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[190]


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.[191] 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.[192][193]

For many years, beginning in at least 2011, Trump publicly questioned President Obama's citizenship status;[194] in 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump stated that Obama was born in the U.S.[195][196] In the past, he has also alluded to the conspiracy theory that President Obama is secretly a Muslim.[197][198]

Trump has discussed the unfounded notion that vaccine doses cause autism if administered too quickly in succession,[199][200] and the conspiracy theory that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might not have died of natural causes but was murdered.[201] He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[202]

(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. ^ a b Timiraos, Nick (June 20, 2016). "U.S. Economy Would Be 'Diminished' Under Trump's Economic Plan, New Analysis Says". Wall Street Journal.
  23. ^ a b "What a Donald Trump presidency would do to the global economy". Washington Post. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  24. ^ a b 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. ^ a b Timiraos, Nick. "Prominent Economists, Including Eight Nobel Laureates: 'Do Not Vote for Donald Trump'". WSJ. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
  27. ^ a b "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. ^ "Tax Reform | Donald J Trump for President". Donaldjtrump.com. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
  58. ^ "Details and Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan". The Tax Foundation. Retrieved July 17, 2016.
  59. ^ 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.
  60. ^ Greenberg, Jon (July 26, 2016). "Sanders: Trump would allow states to lower the minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  61. ^ Jacobson, Louis (July 28, 2016). "Donald Trump gets a Full Flop for stance on minimum wage". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
  62. ^ "White House battle set to chill US economy, says FT survey". Financial Times.
  63. ^ 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.
  64. ^ "A new study says Trump would raise taxes for millions. Trump's campaign insists he won't". Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2016.
  65. ^ "Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016". The Tax Foundation. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  66. ^ "As news of Trump's taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  67. ^ 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).
  68. ^ "Lawrence Solomon: Donald Trump's protectionism fits right in with Republicans". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  69. ^ 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.
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ "Trump calls NAFTA a "disaster"". 60 Minutes, CBS. September 25, 2015.
  72. ^ "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.
  73. ^ Lane, Charles (October 21, 2015). "Donald Trump's contempt for the free market". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  74. ^ 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.
  75. ^ Galston, William A. (November 17, 2015). "Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave". The Wall Street Journal.
  76. ^ a b Stephen Loiaconi, Experts: Trump's border wall could be costly, ineffective, Sinclair Broadcast Group (August 18, 2015).
  77. ^ a b Johnson, Jenna (May 13, 2016). "Trump: All policy proposals are just flexible suggestions". The Washington Post.
  78. ^ Woodward, Bob (April 5, 2016). "Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  79. ^ a b Donald Trump emphasizes plans to build 'real' wall at Mexico border, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, August 19, 2015, retrieved September 29, 2015
  80. ^ Oh, Inae (August 19, 2015). "Donald Trump: The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional". Mother Jones. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  81. ^ Miller, Zeke J. (August 23, 2016). "Donald Trump Signals 'Softening' of Immigration Position". Time. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  82. ^ Bradner, Eric (August 28, 2016). "Trump to give immigration speech amid major questions". CNN. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  83. ^ "Donald Trump visits Mexico to build relations in the country". BBC World News. August 31, 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2016.
  84. ^ "Donald Trump Pivots Back to Hard-Line Immigration Stance". Time. August 31, 2016. Retrieved September 1, 2016.
  85. ^ "Trump retreats on deportations, vows no amnesty". Associated Press. September 1, 2016. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
  86. ^ Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
  87. ^ 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..."
  88. ^ 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.
  89. ^ 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..."
  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. ^ 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.'
  93. ^ a b Dann, Carrie (July 24, 2016). "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". NBC News. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  94. ^ Johnson, Jenna (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump is expanding his Muslim ban, not rolling it back". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
  95. ^ Galston, William A. (November 17, 2015). "Trump Rides a Blue-Collar Wave". The Wall Street Journal.
  96. ^ Woodward, Bob (April 5, 2016). "Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  97. ^ Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
  98. ^ 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.
  99. ^ 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."
  100. ^ 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.
  101. ^ Johnson, Jenna (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump is expanding his Muslim ban, not rolling it back". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
  102. ^ a b Parker, Ashley; Davenport, Coral (May 26, 2016). "Donald Trump's Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules". The New York Times.
  103. ^ Samenow, Jason (March 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's unsettling nonsense on weather and climate". The Washington Post.
  104. ^ a b c d e Ehrenfreund, Max (July 22, 2015). "Here's what Donald Trump really believes". The Washington Post.
  105. ^ "What Donald Trump said about the Chinese inventing the 'hoax' of climate change". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  106. ^ Nelson D. Schwartz. May 21, 2016. Economic Promises a President Trump Could (and Couldn't) Keep The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2016
  107. ^ 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).
  108. ^ 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.
  109. ^ a b "In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved July 12, 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. ^ Bravender, Robin. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition". Scientific American.
  112. ^ Greshko, Michael (November 9, 2016). "The Global Dangers of Trump's Climate Denial". National Geographic. Retrieved November 24, 2016.
  113. ^ "An America first energy plan" (Press release). May 26, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
  114. ^ Mufson, Steven (November 29, 2016). "Trump's energy policy team includes climate change skeptic, free-market advocate". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
  115. ^ Samenow, Jason (March 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's unsettling nonsense on weather and climate". The Washington Post.
  116. ^ "What Donald Trump said about the Chinese inventing the 'hoax' of climate change". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  117. ^ Nelson D. Schwartz. May 21, 2016. Economic Promises a President Trump Could (and Couldn't) Keep The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2016
  118. ^ 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.
  119. ^ Meyer, Robinson (22 November 2016). "What Does Trump Think About Climate Change? He Doesn't Know Either". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 November 2016.
  120. ^ Kopan, Tal (December 5, 2016). "Donald Trump meets with Al Gore on climate change". CNN. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
  121. ^ "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)
  122. ^ a b Trump sets record for longest 2016 GOP announcement speech. Fox News Channel, June 16, 2015
  123. ^ Moser, Laura (January 26, 2016). "Trump Releases Video Airing His Completely Vague Views on Education and Common Core". Slate.
  124. ^ Richwine, Jason (October 23, 2015). Why Not Abolish the Department of Education? National Review. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  125. ^ "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)
  126. ^ Moser, Laura (January 26, 2016). "Trump Releases Video Airing His Completely Vague Views on Education and Common Core". Slate.
  127. ^ Richwine, Jason (October 23, 2015). Why Not Abolish the Department of Education? National Review. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  128. ^ 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.
  129. ^ a b c Philip Rucker (March 21, 2016). "Trump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy". The Washington Post.
  130. ^ a b c d "Donald Trump, American Nationalist". The National Interest. November 3, 2015.
  131. ^ Amanpour, Christiane (July 22, 2016). "Donald Trump's speech: 'America first,' but an America absent from the world". CNN.
  132. ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
  133. ^ 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.
  134. ^ "What's Trump's Position on NATO?". factcheck.org. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  135. ^ "Full Rush Transcript: Donald Trump, CNN Milwaukee Republican Presidential Town Hall". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
  136. ^ "Trump once called for sending US ground troops to fight ISIS and "take that oil"". motherjones.com.
  137. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (March 11, 2016). "Trump wants 30,000 troops. Would that defeat ISIS?". CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  138. ^ "Trump Calls for 20,000–30,000 Troops to Fight ISIS". The Weekly Standard. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  139. ^ "The Latest: Trump backtracks on US forces to fight militants". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  140. ^ McCarthy, Tom. "Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". The Guardian. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  141. ^ "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Advocate Bringing Back Waterboarding". ABC News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  142. ^ Begley, Sarah. "Read Donald Trump's Speech to AIPAC". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  143. ^ Sherman, Amy (March 1, 2016). Would Donald Trump be 'neutral' between Israel and its enemies? Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
  144. ^ Trump: Israel should 'keep going' with settlements expansions Orly Azoulay, ynetews
  145. ^ 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.
  146. ^ "Donald Trump Again Said He Opposed the War in Iraq. It's Still Not True". Fortune. September 26, 2016.
  147. ^ a b Kiely, Eugene (February 19, 2016). "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". Factcheck.org. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  148. ^ "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.
  149. ^ Concha, Joe. "'False' rating on Trump Iraq stance should be at least 'half true'", The Hill (September 29, 2016).
  150. ^ Greenberg, Don (February 16, 2016). "It's true: Donald Trump once supported impeaching George W. Bush". Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  151. ^ "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.
  152. ^ a b CNN, Tom LoBianco. "Donald Trump on Afghanistan: Not a mistake". CNN. Retrieved July 22, 2016. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  153. ^ a b "AP FACT CHECK: Trump displays spotty memory on his views about Libya in debate". Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  154. ^ a b Sharockman, Aaron (February 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim he never discussed Libya intervention". PolitiFact.com.
  155. ^ CNN, Eric Bradner. "Trump – again – reverses Libya position". CNN. Retrieved July 22, 2016. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  156. ^ "Trump says Putin is 'not going to go into Ukraine,' despite Crimea". CNN. August 1, 2016.
  157. ^ 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.
  158. ^ "Trump suggests U.S. accept Russia's annexation of Crimea". PBS. August 1, 2016.
  159. ^ Winsor, Morgan (July 28, 2016). "Trump: 'I Was Being Sarcastic' About Russia Finding Clinton's Emails". ABC News. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  160. ^ "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails as Pence condemns cyber-spying". Associated Press. July 27, 2016. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
  161. ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
  162. ^ "Trump once called for sending US ground troops to fight ISIS and "take that oil"". motherjones.com.
  163. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (March 11, 2016). "Trump wants 30,000 troops. Would that defeat ISIS?". CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  164. ^ "Trump Calls for 20,000–30,000 Troops to Fight ISIS". The Weekly Standard. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  165. ^ "The Latest: Trump backtracks on US forces to fight militants". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
  166. ^ Begley, Sarah. "Read Donald Trump's Speech to AIPAC". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  167. ^ Wright, David (April 21, 2016). "Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion". CNN.
  168. ^ 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.
  169. ^ a b "Donald Trump punching back". MediaBuzz. Fox News Channel. July 5, 2015.
  170. ^ 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.
  171. ^ "Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump's financial record; Trump responds". January 31, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
  172. ^ Gorman, Michele (May 20, 2016). "A brief history of Donald Trump's stance on gun rights". Newsweek.
  173. ^ Krieg, Gregory (June 20, 2016). "The times Trump changed his positions on guns". CNN.
  174. ^ 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.
  175. ^ a b February 27, 2015. (Excerpt from Donald Trump Remarks at CPAC). Donald Trump on Marijuana. C-Span. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
  176. ^ a b Diamond, Jeremy (December 11, 2015). "Trump: Death penalty for cop killers". Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved March 15, 2016.
  177. ^ 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.
  178. ^ Wright, David (April 21, 2016). "Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion". CNN.
  179. ^ 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.
  180. ^ Gorman, Michele (May 20, 2016). "A brief history of Donald Trump's stance on gun rights". Newsweek.
  181. ^ Krieg, Gregory (June 20, 2016). "The times Trump changed his positions on guns". CNN.
  182. ^ McCarthy, Tom. "Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". The Guardian. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  183. ^ "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Advocate Bringing Back Waterboarding". ABC News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  184. ^ Levey, Noam (March 3, 2016). "Trump promised a 'beautiful' healthcare plan, but it's pretty basic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  185. ^ Kertscher, Tom. "Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  186. ^ 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.
  187. ^ "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."
  188. ^ "Veterans Administration Reforms That Will Make America Great Again". Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. October 31, 2015. Retrieved November 1, 2015.
  189. ^ Levey, Noam (March 3, 2016). "Trump promised a 'beautiful' healthcare plan, but it's pretty basic". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  190. ^ Kertscher, Tom. "Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  191. ^ Benen, Steve. "A conspiracy theorist and his powerful pals", MSNBC (December 3, 2015).
  192. ^ Shafer, Jack. "Did We Create Trump?", Politico (May 2016): "Trump's outrageous comments about John McCain, Muslims, the 14th Amendment and all the rest..."
  193. ^ 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.
  194. ^ Krieg, Gregory (September 16, 2016). 14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims – half from after 2011. CNN. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  195. ^ "Trump says Obama born in US, 'period' – after new 'birther' dust-up", Fox News Channel (September 16, 2016).
  196. ^ Maggie Haberman, Even as He Rises, Donald Trump Entertains Conspiracy Theories, The New York Times (February 29, 2016).
  197. ^ Moody, Chris; Holmes, Kristen (September 18, 2015). "Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim". CNN.
  198. ^ Colvin, Jill (January 6, 2016). "Trump joshes with audience over Muslim comments, Clinton". Associated Press.
  199. ^ Mahoney, Emily. "Fact Check: Donald Trump's claim on spaced-out vaccines, autism rate", Arizona Republic (October 16, 2015).
  200. ^ Krieg, Gregory J. (August 23, 2012). "Donald Trump Plays Doctor on Twitter". ABC News. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  201. ^ Pearce, Matt. "Scalia's death and lack of an autopsy bring out the conspiracy theorists", Los Angeles Times (February 16, 2016).
  202. ^ Qiu, Linda (May 6, 2016). "Anatomy of a talking point: Donald Trump on the JFK assassination". Tampa Bay Times. PolitiFact.com.

This is splendid work but it is an opinion piece. Compounding the difficulties is that Hillary had public positions and private positions, sometimes differing. Trump is likely to have the same. A campaign release is liable to be not exactly what the candidate thinks. This might be why presidential biographies tend not to have a political positions section. Usernamen1 (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]
As has been pointed out to me on several occasions, every article should be judged on its own merits, not in comparison with other articles. Seriously, this is proposing cutting "Foreign policy" to six sentences; and "Economy" to a mere two! That's ridiculous! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bastun that the sections on Economy and Foreign policy have been shortened too much and lack substance. Feel free to expand them. — JFG talk 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because your proposal to gut the article's multiple sections in one edit lacks consensus. That's not how Wikipedia articles are improved. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was reasonable consensus that this section should be summarized, then JasperTech made a proposal and I just formatted it for easier collective editing. The intent is to build a consensus version collectively, not to "impose some gutting". If this is not how Wikipedia articles are improved, then I don't know how. This approach sure looks better than starting multiple revert wars on each factoid… @Bastun, Marteau, Thucydides411, Gwillhickers, MrX, Sagittarian Milky Way, Objective3000, Madshurtie, and Volunteer Marek: Shall we work together? — JFG talk 22:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I generally prefer the concept of attacking one area at a time, in this case I support your approach as it attacks one general article problem. Gaining consensus may be difficult. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, the problem with the idealistic approach of making one small edit at a time to slowly reduce the size of the section is that it would leave many intermediate versions of this highly-visible article with undue weight placed on the parts that had not been summarized yet. Hopefully by pinging interested editors we can achieve consensus on a version that will adequately summarize his policy positions from the get-go once it's implemented. Tomorrow I'll take a look at the foreign policy and economy sections and see if I can improve them, but maybe someone will beat me to it by then. JasperTECH (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "idealistic" approach, as you call it, is how Wikipedia is designed to work and how it actually works in practice. This article isn't an exception, and you're addressing a problem that doesn't exist. Small, multiple, incremental changes does work. What you're proposing is largely unworkable. I might agree with one change and disagree with another but we're talking multiple editors discussin multiple sections, simultaneously, on a rapidly changing talk page. Were we to go this route, then when someone imposes the "consensus" version, you'd find multiple discussions opening simultaneously as editors interested in one area find their area of interest has changed. Why do we need to reduce the sizes of sections? (WP:NOTPAPER). Is the "original" version of each section above still the current version, or have there been better edits made, since? Who would make the final decision to publish? Sorry, this is a terrible idea. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: Your response doesn't seem to address the concern of intermediate versions of the article with undue weight placed on them. The method of improving the article one edit at a time may achieve the same end result, but so does working on a draft version—the same approach was used when creating the article about the business career of Donald Trump. Having a draft version also has the benefit of avoiding edit wars and helping everyone work together with cooler heads. I believe the "original" version shown in the working draft is still almost identical to the one in the article, though feel free to update it if it's not.
As for ownership, that's easy to solve—the person who enacts the edit just needs to mention all the editors who contributed to the consensus version. Anyway, check out the economic section now and see if it looks more satisfactory. The foreign policy section can be similarly expanded. JasperTECH (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What undue weight would that be? You've mentioned this strawman a couple of times. Editing normally - small, incremental changes - is not any more likely to lead to "undue weight" than a small cabal of editors introducing a single mass change to large portions of the article. Even if that were the case, it is easier to fix things that were introduced in small increments. Your proposed change culls an entire subsection, but that's not introducing bias by omission? (Also, please actually read WP:OWN, you missed my point entirely - any mass change is still subject to normal editing). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given some editors' preference for gradual changes, I have started by applying the proposed changes on the summary section, and I may edit other sections shortly while being careful not to "gut" them. Let's see how it goes… — JFG talk 21:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ZOMG, NO! Look at all of that undue weight you left beh- oh, wait, no, you didn't... Good job. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL — JFG talk 22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Solntsa90: I took note of your revert and invite you to raise your objections to my edits here. As you see, discussion is ongoing around a working draft to trim and update this section, and your input is welcome. — JFG talk 22:00, 7 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]

I changed it to add real estate developer but then realized that there is a discussion here. However, there was a stark warning saying 1RR so I cannot change it or face being blocked. In the future, I will check the talk page before editing. In other Wikipedia article this is not necessary but this article is, believe me, sad! (ok, the last few words is a parody). Usernamen1 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should comment and consider all titles. Here are some and my vote. President-elect (yes). Politician (no, because many sources say he was elected because he was an outsider not a politician). Real estate developer (yes). Businessman (maybe, probably yes). Reality TV actor (maybe, probably yes). Dictator (no). Author (no, minor nexus). CEO (no). TV producer (no). Celebrity (no). Usernamen1 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Trump a politician is an error and pov. He has never held political office. Also Obama, Bush W and Clinton wikipedia articles don't call them politicians so a foreigner might conclude that Trump us a politician but Obama and Bush were not. Samswik (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were right not to change it again, and to come here. As you can see there is consensus here to describe him as politician, businessman, and president elect. Per the discussion above, when someone is elected president their previous activities pale in comparison so they are not generally mentioned in the lede. Also, Trump may have campaigned on the claim that he is not a politician, but he is one now. Running for office, and holding elective office, are the very definition of a politician. And actually the lede sentences of GW Bush and both Clintons do describe them as politicians (for some reason it is omitted from the Obama article, but IMO it should be there). "Politician" is not some kind of dirty word; it is the term for a person who runs for and wins elective office. --MelanieN (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below, "Politician", for a continuation and summary of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clear consensus that the county information is undue in Trump's bio. Such details are in the 2016 election page, where they belong. — JFG talk 07:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This must be included as well: Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500, Winning 83% Of The Geographic Nation.[23] — 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[24] 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.[25][26][27][28] But of course there are also plenty of incorrect datasets out there, which magnify the demographic differentials.[29] So to partially answer your question, in 2008 it was around~72% of the known-counties for McCain,[30], 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.[31] 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]
Comment : -- "Not notable" is clearly an opinion, esp since this cross section of national demographics was covered by national media. Yes, some counties have smaller populations, many of the ones Trump won do not. Remember we are writing for an encyclopedia where the more intelligent and inquisitive reader comes for neutral information. If they want a source that preaches to members of their particular choir they can go elsewhere. Anyone who is interested in where the votes came from, and there are no doubt many, would welcome this information, and it can be easily covered with just a statement in the Election to the Presidency section which is rather short to begin with. To be fair and neutral we need more than the claim that this info is "not notable" from those so intent on blocking this information, esp since there is a section dedicated to Trump's election. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as possibly well-intentioned highlighting of a "first" factoid. There have only ever been, I think, 60 (?) U.S. Presidential elections. That being the case, it seems to me that any reporter willing to expend the time and effort to find them would be able to find some "first" of some sort for either side in this election. I tend to think any such information, which relates to both candidates, is probably better placed in one of the articles on the election itself, rather than in the biographical articles of any of the individuals involved, unless the factoid is more freakish than virtually any I have seen so far, like, maybe, the first president of an alien species or something like that. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as the number of counties won is misleading. Kalawao County of Hawaii, which has only 89 people, will have just as much weight in county count as Los Angeles County, which has 10.17 million people. Also, inclusion of number of counties won does not make sense geographically, as the smallest county by area (Falls Church of Virginia, which is actually a county equivalent) has just 2 square miles, while the largest county by area (Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area of Alaska, another county equivalent) has 147,800 square miles. Definitely oppose. --Proud User (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

After 14 days, I count 13–2 Oppose, not counting the OP who did not make an argument. Unless someone wants to claim that those 2 have stronger arguments than the 13, and request an uninvolved closer, I will close this in a day or two as "consensus to omit". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure, an uninvolved closer is required. These things often just go to archive without a declaration of consensus, and then are cited later as showing consensus, but I feel that practice just invites conflict. I therefore request any uninvolved editor to close this. They may wish to then add an entry at #Current consensuses and RfCs; otherwise I or someone else can do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestion, User:Mandruss, but I disagree that an "uninvolved closer is required". The "Closure procedure" you cited said that an uninvolved administrator is required for discussion which "are particularly contentious or unclear", and that requests for an independent closer should be made at ANRFC "Where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications." None of those things appear to be the case here. I really think that any one of us, even those who have participated in the discussion, could close this 13-2 discussion, and I encourage you to do so. If you hesitate to do so, I will. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looked out the window and it's snowing. This isn't close. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: What you describe may or may not be common practice, but it's not how I read the above-linked guidance. 1. It begins with "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins," emphasis theirs. 2. The "contentious or unclear" reference is about requests at ANRFC. Consensus is not about numbers, and it's at least theoretically possible that 2 editors could have stronger arguments than 13 others, hence the need for uninvolved. I am therefore hesitating to do so, so have at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, according to Wikipedia:Closing discussions, "Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious…. When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion…. It may be useful to close Requests for comments." I note that this discussion was not a WP:Request for comment so formal closure is not required. I will just summarize, acknowledging my own role as a discussant: This discussion ran for 10 days and has had no additional comments for the last 5 days. Consensus is clear: by my count there are 14 saying "don't include this information" and 3 saying "include it." I will exclude my own !vote and tally 13 to 3. That is a clear consensus against including this particular item in the article. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I doubt if it is necessary to list this at "Current consensuses and RfCs" - because I doubt it will come up again. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, "consensus is not about numbers" is a widely-held misconception and I stand corrected. I concede that it would be impractical to uninvolved-close every discussion that reached a consensus, but the p&g would benefit from clarification on this.
I think the list should include all consensuses, not just those that some feel are likely to come up again. We have room. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

No. Many of the statements have been false and easly verified as such. We don't censor Wikipedia and it seems rather important for someone who is going to be President.Casprings (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a minority school of thought that we should avoid making content decisions based on the fact that the election was impending, and I don't mind being in that minority. It would follow that we should avoid making content decisions based on the fact that the election is past. If his pattern was motivated by his desire to win the election, and it changes now, one could argue that the content is stale and less relevant, but that remains to be seen. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the election hubbub died down, several questions have been asked by uninvolved readers about this specific part of the lede, so a new discussion is probably warranted. The essential differences of opinion seem to be whether that statement should be attributed rather than stated in WP voice, and whether the perennial "or false" should just go and leave "controversial", which nobody denies. I fear a long discussion… — JFG talk 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I changed "have been controversial or false" to "were controversial or false" because we're in a campaign context there. I saw that as an uncontroversial edit, but some may disagree, saying that it implies that the pattern has ended. I don't think it necessarily implies that and I stand by the edit while being revertable. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : It would be nice to see the actual quotes in their entirety. Did Trump make the general statement that he opposed nuclear proliferation and later qualified that a 'couple' of countries however might be better off e.g.given the situation with North Korea? Did Trump actually make the flat out and obtuse claim that "more counties should acquire nuclear weapons"? To whom did he make this comment? It's hard to determine exactly what's going on here going by this highly partisan and clearly anti-Trump web-cite. Looks like one of Trump's many gutter-snipes were trying to make 2+2 look like 100. Are there neutral sources that outline this affair and give us Trump's first quote, in context, and then compares it to Trump's allegedly contradictory second quote, in context? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed feelings. Yes.
The claim that many of Trump's statements were "controversial or false" may act as a helpful flag to alert the reader that this is very much a C-class article. Most readers can easily spot the logical fallacy. According to CMOS, "one of the statements joined by the conjunction ["or"] ... may [itself] be false." (¶ 5.198, Disjunctive Conjunctions.) Cf. Lunsford, 4th ed., under "Flashpoints of Logical Argument: Equivocation". Illustration: Many of MelanieN's statements have been controversial or false. (As far as I know, however, none of them have been false.)
The article body cites two reputable sources for the claim that "many of his statements have been" controversial or false. Both sources are dated December 21, 2015. According to CMOS, the present perfect tense "denotes an act, state, or condition that ... continues up to the present".
Also, the article body cites Bezos's newspaper as a reputable source for a claim about one of Clinton's several adversaries. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC) 03:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I've voiced my concerns here. The closer of the first RFC stated "my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy." This has not been done. The statement is not citing an example, but generalizing the body of Trump's statements. "Many of his statements" is a judgement quantifying a large quantity of his statements as false, relative to truth. We have sources that support that view, which is fine, but there are sources that report disagreement with it as well. The sentence is expressing an opinion (or assessment) about facts and thus should be attributed - or at the least, not spoken in Wikivoice. Morphh (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – The lead is not the place to make a blanket characterization of a person's trustworthiness, in WP's voice to boot. I said that before the election and I'll repeat it afterwards, and I did say it for both candidates who were painted as liars during the campaign. The campaign section of Trump's bio is worded more carefully than the lead: it makes appropriate, quantified and attributed statements on Trump's "truthful hyperbole". Nevertheless the lead should convey some sense of the controversial and inflammatory nature of Trump's campaign. Here's a suggestion to amend the text:

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

Would this be an acceptable turn of phrase? — JFG talk 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. We went through an RfC that had wide participation, was based on reliable sources, and rebutted every argument made so far in this discussion.- MrX 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This phrase is much better. Ag97 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Trump is prone to hyperbolic statements. I have seen this stated elsewhere and was going to mention it, thx JFG for articulating my thoughts Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- One sided and highly contested claims don't belong in the lede. Generally agree with JFG's proposal here. This is certainly more neutral and doesn't try to present issues with many variables involved as absolute fact as many of the partisan "sources" attempt to do. However, I have to wonder about "unprecedented media coverage". (Even more than Obama's campaign??) Since when has the media 'not covered' presidential campaigns as much as Trump's? Who made this claim? The media? Anyway, JFG is on the right track. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : If any 'fact' is provable, we'll need more than the say so of the sort of article that is too often used to cite these things. Re: Trump's quotes about nuclear proliferation, I asked for clarity, quotes, context, and all we're getting here is the recital of evasive and generic claims that doesn't address Trump's actual quotes. And any "fact" can be taken out of context and presented in a misleading way, as is so often practiced by the media. We'll need to see the actual quotes, in context, before we entertain the machinations of disgruntled gutter snipes and jump leap to their conclusions. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult the RfC and the sources presented therein, including Pulitzer prize wining publications that gave very specific details. Most of us are tired of proving this over and over, and we are moving well into WP:DEADHORSE territory at his point.- MrX 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you apparently can't supply the actual before and after quotes, in context, you telling me to 'go fish'. Sure. Yes, we need to keep opinionated accounts of any false statements out of the lede, and elsewhere, unless there is absolute proof, presented in context. Thanx again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Demanding more an more proof, and exceptional proof beyond what is required by our policies, for something that has been settled by consensus is tendentious, and is not conduct that is acceptable in articles about U.S. politics. Please stop doing that.- MrX 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed". As you said, it's being challenged over and over again, thus by your own words and BLP policy, it must be explicitly attributed. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently omitted "... which is usually done with an inline citation."- MrX 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"explicit attribution" is not the same as "inline citation" - they're not exclusive. A citation is always required - fact or opinion. Inline attribution, saying who "explicitly" makes the claim, is done for challenged material. Morphh (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempted interpretation of this sentence is baffling to me. It says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." - MrX 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read explicit attribution as a reference to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and separate from the accompanying footnote. The phrase "which is usually done with" means the attribution is done along with the citation to substantiate it. Morphh (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading takes me to WP:BLPSOURCES though, which doesn't contain the same "explicit" term that makes me think "inline". It doesn't help that attribution has multiple meanings on Wikipedia. Morphh (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that that needs clarification. My understanding of the word attribution is that it refers to prose like "according to". But that can't possibly mean that we can't use wiki voice for anything that has been challenged regardless of the merit of the challenge. Challenges are cheap and easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- This statement is highly biased. Every politician says some things that are false. The FBI director accused Hillary Clinton of lying, so why isn't that in the lead of her article? Wikipedia is so biased, this website is a complete joke. Ag97 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- But not only in the lead. A good example is his claim that millions of people voted illegally being "false". It's false that he has absolute evidence of it, but it's otherwise completely plausible based on self reporting surveys of illegals voting in past elections and intentions to vote in this one (between 13 and 15%). Yet in this article and other media reports, it is described as a "false claim". It is an unproven claim, but you cannot anymore claim it is false than he can assert it is absolutely true. Another his saying it's false the Clinton campaign started birtherism. They absolutely floated it during the 2008 primaries. Whether this means Clinton herself had a hand in it or not, there's no concrete evidence of that, but you'd have to assume she'd given the OK for the various fishing expeditions and leaking to the press her campaign did about Obama's origins. So again, it is not "false" - it is "disputed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Trump's concern for illegal voting certainly has a lot of basis, given the fact that outfits like ACORN (which was disbanded in 2010 after mounting public exposure) had a long history {1, 2 3, 4, 5) of voter registration fraud, who concentrate their efforts in the big cities and have been indicted and/or convicted on numerous occasions for their dirty deeds. There are recent events to consider also. 1, 2. When you consider that the Democrats stonewalled the effort to require identification for voter registration it should come as no surprise that many of Clinton's votes could possibly be fraudulent. There is already a media/source war going on about the affair. Expressing a reservation about this sordid affair is not making a false statement, and referring to Trump's reservations about voter fraud as a "false statement" is actually the false statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is, simply put, fringe-theory nonsense. No reliable or credible source anywhere supports the idea that Trump's statement "certainly has a lot of basis." To the contrary, the universe of reliable journalistic and academic sources addressing this point unambiguously describe the claim as false and without evidence. See Washington Post ("a bogus claim," "unsubstantiated"); CNN ("without evidence," "no evidence"); Fortune ("Studies Contradict Trump Claim That Voter Fraud Is 'Very, Very Common'"); FactCheck.org ("unsubstantiated urban myths"). Neutralitytalk 23:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, given the long sordid history of provable voter fraud, and the blocked attempts to require identification for voter registration, this just comes off as partisan denial. Again, referring to Trump's concerns about voter fraud as "false statements" or "fringe" are the false statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you have no response at all to the expert assessment. Let me sum up my reaction: you are entitled to your belief, but it is empirically false and should carry zero weight in deciding what content to include in this encyclopedia. Neutralitytalk 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is unfortunately a very very big difference between an expert opinion based on minimal observation in this particular case and something being "empirically false." The only way we could make such a statement would be if there were a thorough review of the matter which made basically the same statement. I am no particular fan of Trump, but I do think that statements by media prior to or without thorough investigation are a long way from being "empirical" facts. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still waiting to see if there is a need to re-open this discussion, but I do object to the proposed wording from JFG. Where are the Reliable Sources to support the phrase "boisterous style"? If we remove "false" we should simply leave the sentence as "many of his statements... have been controversial." Or else we could qualify it with something like "many of his statements... have been controversial, and some have been characterized by multiple commentators as false". In the meantime Morphh makes a good point about attribution, and I will add something. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there have been at least a few sources discussing his off-the-cuff presentation and sometimes possibly willfully inflammatory comments. Alternately, maybe replacing "false" with "inaccurate" or something similar might work. "False" might be seen by some as more strongly indicating the willful inaccuracy of statements than the word "inaccurate" might. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stole the phrasing suggested by MelanieN, many controversial + some false, and put together my own variation in a suggestion down further below. I believe that the questions are now the following: #1, do we have enough support to change from many-controversial-or-false, to a new version which has many-controversial-and-some-false. Question #2, is there enough support to insert a sentence, or a sentence-clause, which links the many-controversial-statements portion with the unprecedented-media-coverage-portion, as suggested by JFG and then stolen-and-re-suggested in an altered form by myself below, with cites. I think that question#0, on whether to remove 'false' entirely and just say 'controversial' is unlikely to get adopted; I also think that replacing false with inaccurate, is a non-starter, but I don't care much one way or the other, if somebody wants to officially pose that as a proposal then we can see what happens. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The falsehoods were not just a major theme of his campaign, but also a major part of his life and career, and historically significant. Additionally, the importance of the falsehoods continues afterward. For example, the sources report that Trump's unambiguously false post-election claim that there was massive voter fraud, and that he actually won the popular vote, is without precedent in U.S. history. See, e.g., Yahoo News ("stunning" ... "remarkable and unprecedented for a victorious presidential candidate to claim widespread voter fraud"); Politico ("an unprecedented rebuke of the U.S. electoral system by a president-elect and met with immediate condemnation from voting experts," quoting Richard L. Hasen); CNN ("It's an unprecedented allegation by a president-elect."). Given all this, it should be in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given all what? Trump has concerns about voter fraud, and justifiably so. Can you show us the actual quote where Trump says there was cases of documented voter fraud, or can all you provide us are the concerns he expressed? Sorry, only provable facts should be considered for the lede, not partisan out of context sniping. Trump believes vote fraud played a role. No one can prove this, but otoh, is there proof that his concerns are, in fact, wrong? Expressing a belief is not a false statement unless you can prove it to be wrong. Let's be clear about that distinction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally a textbook example of the argument from ignorance (no, you can't make a wild claim and then demand that objectors "prove a negative"). In any case, it's clear that nothing will ever change your mind, including the universal assessment of the experts. See PolitiFact: "Experts dismissed the substance of Trump’s tweet. 'This is patently false,' said Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University political scientist. ... Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz added, '... he is simply repeating baseless claims.'" And University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket said the claim is short on basic logic."). Neutralitytalk 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People can make statements about their concerns all they like, and given the history of voter fraud in the past, expressing such a concern is understandable. Basic probability evidently escapes Mr. Masket. Trump's concerns have a basis in past events and are justified. Q. What's to stop an illegal immigrant from registering to vote? A. Not a thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES - Unless we are going to go through all politician pages and add this comment it is not only irrelevant but extremely biased and was written for that reason. That's not even considering the fact that the source is PolitiFact, owned by Tampa Bay Times which endorsed Hillary Clinton and PolitiFact has its own history of bending the truth. Some of the claims included in the source turned out to be true. The argument that "this is a trait of his whole life" is biased and anyone exhibiting that should be blocked from editing this page because they seem incapable of separating their opinions from academic record. If this is to be an encyclopedia and not just a soap-box for the internet to shout from then all bias needs to be removed from the statement. -- The fact that this is even a matter of debate ought to demonstrate that the statement does not belong. Velostodon (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gross violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. The line but extremely biased and was written for that reason makes this a broad-based, unprovoked attack against many editors. Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This is getting so typical: Avoid the issue and fire away with accusations. Velostoden makes a very valid point and has not personally attacked anyone, and he/she certainly has not pushed the envelope of civility or violated any other guidelines. If the same few editors exhibit a continued trend to include the negative and block the positive, and repeatedly use clearly partisan sources to support their effort, then they forfeit AGF considerations and should be called on this behavior. Having said that, a general criticism about bias was made and no personal accusations were ever made as was done just now. Trying to bully editors with opposing views with such exaggerated accusations is not the way to go here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, Velostodon ignored the issue and fired away with accusations. He specifically stated that editors purposely added bias and should be blocked without a shred of evidence. You added to this because you don't like a WP:RS. Again, this is not the place to debate WP:RS. Edits like this are not usefule Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, some of the sources are clearly biased, and as such, editors have a right to express their concerns when they are used to prop up opinion. While Velostoden may have used a broad brush in reference to editors, he/she was not off the mark with the way things are often censured or selected in the article. I will say this much, calling for a block was not called for. Any issues can be resolved here on the talk page. Face it, this is a controversial topic and feelings, whether veiled or obvious, seem to be playing a role in what's allowed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss content not editors. Generally, when you start talking about "same few editors" etc. you've sort of conceded the argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please keep bias out of the lede and elsewhere in the article. If there are facts to be presented they will speak for themselves. We have already seen accusations that Trump's warranted concern for voter fraud constitute a "false statement" and a willingness to stick this sort of thing in the lede. No thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that being reported is not the primary issue or even inclusion. The primary issue is taking a generalization, making an assessment as to quantity of lies compared to truth, and then stating it as fact in WikiVoice, like we're saying the capital of France is Paris. There is disagreement on quantity and what qualifies as a lie - we have sources that dispute the assessment. How is this not attributed in any way? You're absolutely right that Trump's difficult relationship with "the truth" and "facts" is something that's been well reported and their assessment is a valid one, but that is what it is.. a judgement, which when generalized and quantified is a disputed one. Morphh (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No editor, including myself, is above criticism. And alas, you have just made your own criticism about me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun may be referring to the message of the essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which I believe is widely accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let Gwillhickers comment. I don't see any badgering here or anything, just a back and forth, which is fine. Whether it's effective is another matter, but please don't say it's not "desirable", at least not yet, after a couple of comments. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "a couple" of comments, it's eight comments after those of five other editors, and is a definitely a case of WP:BLUDGEON. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There has already been an RfC regarding the sentence. The statement is an objective truth and has been repeatedly proven as such, with further sources having been added for it earlier today. It is also highly relevant given that he is the President-elect. This dispute is a textbook dead horse. AndrewOne (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricksy but does need improvement. "Many of his statements... have been controversial or false." We can elide discussion of the 'controversial' bit and simply consider whether or not wikipedia should say in wikipedia's voice that "many of his statements have been false" ... with some wikipedians preferring to go with the even stronger variation that "many of his statements were false" from comments in this RfC. It is undoubtedly correct to say that Trump has made at least one false statement, at some point in time. It is undoubtedly correct to say that Trump has made at least one truthful statement, at some point in time. Thus the real question is not whether we should say false, the real question is whether we should characterize MANY of his statements as false. This is a question of relative quantity. Politicians make many false statements. Trump is a politician. Thus, Trump makes many false statements. That is invalid logic. Correct logic goes like this: Compared to other candidates, Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number [compared to other candidates] were called out as being false. Now, that's pretty wordy, and we can trim the wording slightly, but only if we don't mutate the meaning. The current short sentence, which flat out says "Many of his statements... false" is being TOO BRIEF to give the readership a correct understanding. But I suggest there is a wider concept we need to convey: Trump is known for cleverly using Truthful Hyperbole as a means of standing out from the crowd (sixteen major candidates for the nomination), but also as a means of getting attention, and specifically as a means of manipulating the media into giving him earned coverage. Trump is saying controversial things ON PURPOSE, more than not. (Don't have a cite for that handy however -- so we cannot speak of intent -- but we CAN speak of impact/outcome.) My suggestion is that we say something like this:

"Compared to other candidates, Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number were criticized as being outright false.[1] Partly as a result,[2] and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any candidate[2][3][4] (perhaps[citation needed] ever)."

References

  1. ^ Add some cites which cover this; there is no shortage of media outlets calling Trump a liar.
  2. ^ a b http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/media-study-trump-helped-clinton-hurt-224300 '...Trump exploited their lust for riveting stories...'
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=1&mtrref=undefined
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.23db045eac98
For example, one of his very first controversial statements was that as potus he would build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it. He gave no explanation for how. He published no plan to make it happen. It almost sounds nonsensical, and causes double-takes: did he *really* say that? He did say it. It did draw attention. Whether it was true or not remains to be seen, but I will note that NAFTA is likely to be re-negotiated. The bit about Trump already being a celebrity was also important -- when a random crazy person says something that sounds nonsensical, the media does not cover it, but when a billionaire with a long history in the entertainment business says it, front page news is the outcome. "Boisterous style" ain't the half of it, in other words. Trump is unlike almost all potus candidates in 2016, and arguably unlike all potus candidates of any prior cycle, in that by saying controversial things he *got* media coverage, rather than the usual strategy exemplified by Clinton of avoiding unfavorable coverage and limiting media exposure generally. He spent so little money on paid media coverage, because he didn't need it. This was not an accident; it was a direct consequence of his Truthful Hyperbole,™ which served him well in his real estate career, served him well in television career, and served him well in his potus campaign. It is part and parcel of the biographical subject, that not only did he "say controversial things" but that he stoked controversy so much his motto might as well have been Tweet Brashly And Carry A Big Schtick. Wikipedia needs to convey some of this core truth to the readership; anybody can tell a lie, but Trump has what can only be described as a vast talent. "Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much." (Which is straight from Honest Abe.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taking an ax to the article

This article needs to be cut. I am working on some edits myself(see my sandbox). But in taking an ax to the article, why not attack the non-political(well sort of non-political) stuff first. His business career and his career in entertainment. Much of the other stuff needs to be summarized.. but that will involve greater consensus building.

That said, I largely agree with the recent large edit.Casprings (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he has now become the likely topic of multiple articles relating to his administration, I wholeheartedly support cutting this thing down, and leaving only shorter subsections for each of the topics covered in other articles. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the politics instead -- this article is what is supposed to be his WP:BLP, though it has run amok a fair amount but still. There are other articles specifically for the campaign and cabinet and such, and in the context of his 70 years it is those that are minute bits WP:OFFTOPIC here and the business career and entertainment that is the formative and largest parts of his life. It's also seeming just not WP:DUE much in coverage here from discussions of whether to include 'politician' in his lead as I was seeing Google most hits for him are not political. That may change in the future, but for now he hasn't had decades in public office and the bulk of coverage in print for him is his non-political life. Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biased headings and criticism

I really hate to be this guy, but I couldn't help but notice the lack of a genuine criticisms section. This guy has made so many inflammatory remarks it's impossible to overlook them. His Twitter was central to his campaign and so far the start of his presidency, why is there not an entire section dedicated to it?

Take for example the sections on the article about former stockbroker and fraudster Bernard Madoff. One of the sections is literally titled "Investment scandal." I don't know how Trump University doesn't deserve the same or similar heading. This article wreaks of over-political correctness and bias. BlitzGreg (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlitzGregThere are differences. Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison, for Trump it was settled out of court. Trump University is not an unreasonable title, and covers its subject well. Anyway, the subject of Trump is hyyuuuge, so this article must be heavily summarized, and use sub-articles, and there are many. You´ll find a section on twitter in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, an article about the size of this one. Legal affairs of Donald Trump is not tiny either. The general thought on WP is that critisism should not be singled out to a separate section, it should be in the proper place in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Trumps tweets shouldn´t have a section, they should have one or more articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me the most really is simply the lack of a criticism section at all, even as an overview of the content in the other articles. The reason being that the main Trump article, I would assume, is much more likely to reach more hits than the articles about his campaign (I could be wrong though, can't say for certain without seeing analytical data). BlitzGreg (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trump never made a single racist or sexist remark his entire life. The Trump university case is a nonissue. The whole business was conceived and managed by Michael Sexton. Trump admitted to no wrongdoing in the settlement. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree 100% with your last sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly has by claiming that Mexicans are rapists which was a logical fallacy used to support Trump's racist generalizations. That is the very definition of racism. BlitzGreg (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BlitzGreg - that would be content for the Trump University article. This article is supposedly his WP:BLP (though it's got a lot of non-biographical inserts) so should focus on his birth, marriage, children, education, career, and be about Trump personally. For other things, if they notably affected his life it would be expected to have just a brief mention here how they affected his life, and wikilink to main article... Current wanderings to the contrary oourse. Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that WP:BLP does state the following: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."

And also: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints;" BlitzGreg (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman position in infobox

Should his business career and role as Chairman of the Trump Organization be listed on the infobox? Given Trump's unusual career path to the presidency, I don't think the positions listed should be limited to solely political offices. Edge3 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look under "Occupation". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the "Occupation" label is not equivalent to "office" parameters on the infobox. His business career is equally as notable as his political career. Edge3 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed and settled earlier. — JFG talk 17:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have full agreement on the earlier discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would argue that there was substantial support for adding "Chairman and President of The Trump Organization" as the 'office2' for the infobox in those discussions that you referenced. However, the "no" side kept reverting at that time. Edge3 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I was in favor of using |office2= but I'm happy with |occupation= too. I don't see much point re-opening this discussion, given that the essential information is displayed in both cases. — JFG talk 19:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I appreciate your desire to respect the outcome of those discussions. However, Rex Tillerson is Trump's pick for Secretary of State, and his article is already using the "office" parameters for his leadership position at ExxonMobil. Since the Trump Cabinet is likely to include several businessmen, once approved by the Senate, a broader discussion may be necessary. Would you object to an RfC on this topic? I know we don't like to resurrect prior discussions, but I think it would be useful for this matter. Edge3 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to follow up and see whether an RfC would be necessary here? Edge3 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in reserving RfC for the weightier issues, and this is not one. That may be why it hasn't received much attention. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politician

Obviously Trump is now a politician. In fact, it is now his defining characteristic. I'm surprised this was not already in the article, since he effectively became a politician as soon as he began campaign, and particularly after winning an election and appointing staff. He's also run for office before, so this is fundamentally a no-brainer. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then ALL US presidents would be politicians. If so, then it is redundant. It would be like saying "Bill Clinton was an American President of the United States." or "Bill Clinton was President-Elect and President of the United States". Perhaps a good way to decide if all Presidents should be called politicians is to discuss this with some WikiProject. It would be more useful to Wikipedia if those with a series of political offices or long standing political office becomes noted as a politician in Wikipedia. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All U.S. presidents ARE politicians, as are all elected officeholders, and all presidents are already described as such in the lede sentence. See George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. For some reason it is currently missing from Barack Obama but I have proposed adding it, to be in line with the other such articles. As for why we have both "politician" and "president": politician is a description of what they do (like artist or teacher or actor), which we always put in the lede sentence. President is a temporary title. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ERROR by MelanieN I just looked up 3 presidents and find that none of those 3 have the title "politician" in the lede. See George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at those three articles, you will see the word "politics" used liberally. Perhaps when Trump goes down in history to the extent of these three, you will see a different description at the top of his BLP. (Sorry, that was a tad snarky.) Objective3000 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up a 4th presidential article, Andrew Jackson. He is an American soldier and statesman, not listed as "politician". In addition, Jackson is controversial and hated by some, like Trump. In fact, Jackson is going to be expelled from the $20 bill. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "all U.S. presidents from the past 200 years", would that be more acceptable? I haven't personally checked all of them, it's possible one or two omit it. But things - politics - were rather different in this country 200 years ago. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It WAS in the article (see the section above, "Titles for Trump"). People keep removing it and adding other things. It's supposed to be just "businessman and politician". --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That could either mean that there is a consensus not to have it, agents of the Trump campaign are doing it, agents of the Hillary campaign are doing it, the Russians are doing it, or, as mentioned, there is Wikipedia consensus not to do it. I don't have strong feelings either way but am leaning towards not having it because Trump is among the people with the least rationale to be given the occupation of politician, along with Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarz-whatever. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please omit the conspiracy theories. Consensus rules here. As for Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, you will find "politician" in the lede sentence of both of their articles. "Politician" is not an insult. It is simply what we call someone who runs for and wins elective office. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Usernamen1, you have removed it and replaced it with "real estate developer" a second time. Basically because you like it and regardless of what consensus says. This is absolutely against Wikipedia policy and particularly against the special rules that are in place at this article. I will explain those rules to you at your talk page. Meanwhile, somebody please remove "real estate developer" which has no consensus at all, restore "politician" which does have consensus in the article above, and fix the invisible comment which Usernamen converted into a POV argument. I have already made this change once so I can't do it again per 1RR, but I request someone to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN has written " People keep removing it and adding other things" which means that there is a consensus for change. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Objective3000 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Objective. Usernamen, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. It means that it has to be discussed and consensus reached. The fact that it gets changed (usually by people who haven't read and didn't participate in the discussion) does not overrule a consensus on the talk page. And it certainly doesn't allow people to make changes just because they like it better some other way. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

compromise proposal

Rather that say "is", "is not", "is so", "is not", I've thought of another idea. Trump is definitely not a career politician. The people in Africa or a little kid in America might get the wrong idea if we call Trump a politician and businessman.

What compromise prose might be more accurate is that he became a politician late in life after a life long real estate career. That would differentiate him and inform the reader better compared to someone who held political office for 3 decades and is the career politician.

Similarly, we don't call Trump an author or a hotelier because even though he's done it, it has been a small time portion of his life. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump does blur the definition of the word. We don't call Ross Perot a politician anywhere in the article, let alone in the first paragraph, and getting elected doesn't make the difference in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is a politician by definition. We've already had this discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't fit these definitions very well (except for perhaps the pejorative sense 2b, which would violate WP:NPOV), and WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize WP is not an RS; but he fits: Politician. Objective3000 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You nailed it. My dictionary Trumps your Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Consistency proposal is a failed proposal (and my Perot argument is not about a need to be consistent between articles). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, according to "your dictionary", a politician (#1 definition) is " a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government". What is he doing right now, if not actively (preparing to) conduct the business of a government? What will he be doing for the next 4 years, if not that? --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He ran for political office, took part in numerous political debates, is filling political positions, will hold the highest political office in the US, is talking to political leaders around the world – at some point you don’t keep saying your aren’t a politician. And yes the term has pejorative definitions. So do terms like banker and landlord. We still use these terms. Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Usernamen1 has struck something useful... part of the problem with the current phrasing is that we say "Trump *is* a businessman and [also is a] politician who became potus-elect." But we could instead give the readership some temporal clues, and say "Trump is a businessman and is now a politician who became potus-elect." Trump refused to *consistently* classify himself as a politician, throughout most of his campaign, but at several points gave explicit self-identification: [32][33][34] There is actually a Reliable Source which has considered whether or not potus-elect Trump is, or is not, actually a politician.[35] Plus one borderline-case that is more editorial than think-piece.[36] And a quick search turns up that, at least as late as February 2016, Trump was still of two minds about the designation: "It takes guts [announcing a campaign for potus when you know other candidates and the media will attack you]. Especially if you're not a politician. Now, I'm not a politician, thank goodness. I guess now I am but I'm not, OK? I don't want to be a politician."[37] However, during the general election debate against Clinton,[38][39] we have this fairly unambiguous quote: "I've gotten to know the people of the country over the last year and a half that I've been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I'm saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician,...." To be clear, I don't think we should say "was a businessman and is now a politician" because that would be incorrect -- he spent a lifetime being a businessman, in real estate and in publishing/television/etc, and although he is now (also) a politician that does not erase that he is a businessman still. I recommend adding some footnotes with the quotes I linked to above, at the end of the is-now-a-politician portion; that ought to help. But as I mentioned before when this topic came up, I think it is perfectly fine to simply say "is a businessman and potus-elect" which skips the part about being "is a businessman and (is now a politician and) potus-elect" by entirely cutting the transitional-phrase out. After all, it does not matter whether he is now a politician-and-potus-elect, or is now simply the potus-elect... either way, what matters from a geological perspective is that he is the potus-elect. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: We all know the facts given by MelanieN to be true. To answer her question, right now Trump is actively preparing to become a politician (namely, POTUS). Is he POTUS right now? If not, he isn't a politician right now. He's "expected" to become a politician on January 20, see lead sentence 2. The lead graf may accordingly be tagged for "confusing or unclear". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your proposal - that we don't say "politician" now but we do in a month? We have seen numerous links to where he himself said he guesses he is now a politician. He has spent the past year-and-a-half running for elective office, which even he has to admit is a political activity. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this is up for debate. Since the moment he threw his hat in the ring, Trump has been a politician. He has done fundraising, written policy, received lobbying, run for office and won his election. He is a politician by every definition of the word. I can't see any reason to exclude this obvious description. And in case anyone is concerned, there are plenty of articles out there describing him as a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fundamental human right to "not believe this is up for debate", Scjessey. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought ... and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom ... to manifest his religion or belief...." Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 18. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does any of that have to do with this discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: Whether you "believe" this is up for debate has rather little to do with the discussion, actually. You brought it up, not me (I just supported your right to bring it up). If you review the discussion, you may change your belief. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

further compromise proposal

There are certain things that are of interest to the reader or a noteworthy fact. One is that Obama is the first African American president. Trump is a president (or will be) who has never held political office before. That is more informative than to argue that all presidents are politicians and, therefore, Trump should be called a politician and businessman. So consider working that in. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is already in the lede - in the fourth paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Not sure what the point of this is. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that fourth paragraph lede sentence is full of errors. It claims Trump is the first individual not to have been in public office. How about George Washington? Remember him? The sentence says that Trump is the only one with no military service. Remember General Barack Obama or Admiral Bill Clinton or Captain Herbert Hoover who served in the military (none of them did)? There are probably more that didn't serve in the military. I am ashamed of this Wikipedia article.
The proposal is to amend that sentence and say that Trump was a politician that had never held elected public office before the Presidency. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misread the sentence. It says "without ever having held public office or served in the military." Eisenhower, Washington, and Grant had never held public office, but they had served in the military. Many others never served in the military, but held public office. Trump appears to be the first with NEITHER in his background. And in any case, this does not belong in the lede sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to summarize

Usernamen1 challenged my claim that there is consensus for "businessman, politician, and the President-elect of the United States", and no other titles. So I reviewed all the discussions up to now (primarily "Titles for Trump" but also several later ones). I also counted it where I could identify someone who made a change in the article but did not discuss. Note that these discussions are "not a vote" and strength of argument is also important.

Politician:

  • People favoring "politician": 7
  • People opposing "politician": 4
  • People opposing "politician" now but accepting it in January: 1

Other titles:

  • People wanting only "Businessman" in addition to :"politician": 6
  • People favoring "businessman" without "politician": 2, so a total of 8 in favor of "businessman"

Other proposals instead of or in addition to "businessman":

  • "TV personality" 6
  • "real estate developer" 4
  • "actor" 3
  • "celebrity" 2
  • "author" 1

Conclusions: In addition to the numerical preference at this discussion for including "politician," we should consider the longstanding consensus that must lie behind the inclusion of "politician" in the lede sentence of every other president - even those who, like Eisenhower, spent most of their lives in another profession. I do think we have consensus for "politician".

As for what else to include: there is a strong consensus in favor of "businessman", with "television personality" also having a strong showing. There were several proposals for "real estate developer", but "businessman" has more supporters, and I doubt if we want to include both since they basically describe the same activity - with "businessman" also including his numerous other business activities such as branded products, beauty pageants, football, wrestling, etc.).

There were quite a few people favoring "television personality" - as many as favored politician. Should we add that, to make it "businessman, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States"?

There was little support for "actor", "celebrity", or "author". MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the conclusion that there is a consensus for politician. There is no consensus but a slightly higher vote for politician. There is also more votes for TV personality than real estate developer but he done far more as a real estate developer than a TV personality.
I see that many want to call him politician so a compromise would be to state very, very early in the article lead that "Trump is a politician who had never served elected public office until the Presidency". Usernamen1 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why that is so important to you, that you feel obliged to get it into the lede sentence. It's true that Trump's supporters like to think of him as "not a politician", because that is how he ran (at least at first) - but he unquestionably is one now. Eisenhower's article does not make that distinction, not ANYWHERE in the lede section, even though he had never held elective office before becoming president. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that "television producer" would be less likely to get reverted than "television personality". --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest giving encyclopedia britannica one of the not-votes, but I'm not sure how to interpret their stance.[40] They subtitle their article "Donald Trump: American real-estate developer and politician" but that subtitle-bit is not visible in the URL, and then in the body-prose they only say "Donald Trump, American real-estate developer who [snip biz highlights]. He was the Republican Party nominee for president in 2016. On November 8, 2016, Trump was elected president...." So they do call him a politician in the subtitle of the page, but they do NOT call him a politician in the introductory sentences. No mention is made of his entertainment sub-career (as personality/actor/producer/author/celeb/whatever). My vote is to either elide politician, and just say businessman and potus-elect, or if we MUST include politician in the intro-prose, to explicitly say that Trump is a businessman and is now a politician who became the potus-elect. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But not "was" a businessman. He has made it clear he will continue to be a businessman while in the White House. But I note that Reagan and Eisenhower do not make the distinction between "formerly" an actor or general, and "later" a politician. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite correct: Trump has in fact made it clear that he would totally stop being involved in his real estate empire, letting his executives and children fully manage the Trump businesses and brands. I still think he should be called a businessman, as he intends to run the United States like a business; he picked several business executives for his cabinet. — JFG talk 06:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's been in business for nearly a half-century, continues to talk about his businesses, they will be run by people he has appointed, he will continue to profit from them, and they are not going into a blind trust. Hard to avoid the word businessman. Objective3000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't difficult, guys. We have plenty of reliable sources to back up every conceivable permutation, so it falls upon us to find a consensus for language that seems appropriate. I would argue that we need only those descriptions that are defining characteristics of the subject. These are politician, businessman, and television personality (or television celebrity - whichever people prefer). The latter is important because it is his status as a TV personality that gave him the name recognition he needed to get his campaign rolling in the first place. Politician should come first, because that is what he is right now. The order of the other two is of little importance because they are equally significant biographically. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the preceding. Television personality sense 4b: "a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>". Very commonly used and understood for its intended meaning—at least in American English, the dialect of this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have consensus for "television personality" (a less loaded word than celebrity) and I will add it. As for putting "politician" first, it's true that is what was done at other similar articles such as Eisenhower and Reagan, and I will make that change also. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriately worded for this C-class article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true because Jeb Bush had far more name recognition in the primaries. The TV show "Apprentice" did not cause Trump to be President. Trump's name on so many buildings helped him as did his Twitter outburst. Believe me, Sad! Usernamen1 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to start over from scratch

The word "politician" is over used and redundant. Many users for the term have written or implied that all Presidents are politicians. If so, then choose either President or politician and use one. Since President is more precise and accurate, that should be used. In fact, unless one is a career politician, all the Presidential biographies should not have the word "politician". Anyone may copy this comment to other Presidential talk page biographies.

The word "businessman" is accurate but overly broad. The term "businessman" could apply to everyone from billionaire Bill Gates to some Uber driver. That is why further specification, whether billionaire or real estate developer is useful.

The use of the word "television personality" is a small part of Trump's occupation. Again, this would be undue weight if not balanced with what Trump's occupation is.

Each individual word cannot realistically achieve consensus because the final product must be seen. MelanieN writes that she (assuming that Melanie is not a "he" using a typically female user name) think "television personality" has consensus. That could cause the article to read "Donald Trump (1946-present) is an American television personality and 45th President of the United States" which is clearly a bad decision. Therefore, things have to be taken as a whole. Therefore, I declare that there is NO consensus until there is broad discussion on the whole of the sentence. Sorry to make such declaration but the logic behind it is sound. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve this matter, there should be discussion as to the entire sentence, not just vote on individual titles in a vacuum. I will be so bold as to state that "President-elect" (to be replaced by "45th President of the United States") is an absolute requirement to any reasonable solution so it is included in all of the following choices. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 American politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 2 American businessman and President-elect of the United States
  • 3 American television personality and President-elect of the United States (the result that may happen if MelanieN's analysis is followed).
  • 4 American real estate developer, businessman, television personality and President-elect of the United States
  • 5 American billionaire, real estate developer, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States
  • 6 American real estate developer, television personality, and President-elect of the United States
  • 7 American real estate developer, businessman, and President-elect of the United States
  • 8 American real estate developer, author, educator, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States
  • 9 American real estate developer, businessman, producer, and President-elect of the United States
  • 10 American businessman, real estate developer, TV producer, and President-elect of the United States
  • 11 American CEO of a privately held company that has significant real estate exposure, politician, and President-elect of the United States
  • 12 American real estate CEO, politician, and President-elect of the United States
  • 13 others

There may be some merit to "CEO of a privately held company" because that can result in a different personality than one that leads one to become a CEO of a publicly traded Fortune 500 company like Microsoft or Chevron. This is an unorthodox wording and probably not my favorite. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support #2 – Cleanest and to the point. "Businessman" may be vague but if we want more precision, we's have to list too many activities, which would then have undue weight wrt to his upcoming presidency. The lead section and the article do provide enough coverage of his various business ventures, so that readers can quickly find what kind of a businessman he has been. "Politician" is indeed redundant with "President" and not an accurate description of his activity prior to this election campaign (he did dabble in politics by giving his opinion on political issues but he never acted in a political role, the closest to that being his two prior floated presidential runs which didn't materialize). Also you forgot "businessman, television personality and President-elect" as a viable option (which would be my second choice). — JFG talk 07:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only one that makes any sense is politician, businessman, television personality and President-elect of the United States. "Businessman" covers the real estate developer aspect. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is evidence of inflexibility, battleground behavior, and being prone to edit warring. Consensus is achieved either falsely (by wearing out other editors and chasing them away) or by being able to live with more than only your opinion and choice. Scjessey writing that "the only one" that makes any sense is the wrong type of behavior. Even though I do not believe that "politician" is appropriate, there are certain combinations that would be more sensible than others. I will explain at the end of this section and not insert it in the middle. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and comment on the content, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamen1, I see that you removed "television personality" from the article despite the discussion here. Please stop assuming that anything you disagree with, does not have consensus by definition. Your refusal to accept consensus is starting to be disruptive. This was discussed here at length; I evaluated the discussion and edited the first sentence based on that. We can continue to discuss it here, but is no need to start the discussion all over, or to introduce terms ("billionaire", "CEO") that nobody has suggested up to now. It is frankly dishonest for you to offer 11 choices that don't include "politician" and only one that does, and not even to offer the choice "politician, businessman, television personality and PEOTUS" which appeared to be the consensus here, or the previous wording "politician, businessman, and PEOTUS". I personally wasn't crazy about "television personality" but I bow to consensus; 6 people here suggested it so I added it; if additional discussion shows significant opposition to the term then I will remove it. "Politician" is supported not just by a majority here but by what appears to have been consensus at all the other presidential articles. There also appears to have been consensus, at the other presidential articles, not to clutter up the lede sentence of a president with other activities, unless some other activity was the dominant part of their life and their notability (actor for Reagan, general for Eisenhower). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused by MelanieN immediately above of being "frankly dishonest". She didn't bother to expand on choice 13 so I will. Sorry if anyone misinterpreted my oversight (normal definition, not Wikipedia jargon) of other possibilities. So there are 10 choices listed with "politician" and anyone can suggest more Usernamen1 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 American businessman, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 15 American politician television personality and President-elect of the United States
  • 16 American real estate developer, businessman, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States (this order reflects the time spent doing each with the longest tenure first)
  • 17 American billionaire, real estate developer, businessman, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States (this might reflect what people think of him)
  • 18 American real estate developer, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 19 American real estate developer, businessman, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 20 American politician, television personality, author educator, real estate developer, author, educator, businessman, and President-elect of the United States
  • 21 American real estate developer, businessman, producer, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 22 American businessman, real estate developer, TV producer, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 23 American real estate CEO, politician, and President-elect of the United States

This whole 23 versions thing is ludicrous. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of these proposals are non-starters. Here's the situation: President-elect needs to be in the first sentence. It is the most important thing about him right now. In a month it will be "45th president of the United States" which also has to go in the lede sentence. Most of the other president articles use the formula "is an American politician who was the XXth President of the United States," but that formula is necessary for them because of the different verbs ("is" vs. "was), and there are some here who strongly oppose a "is.. who is.." formula. So whatever other titles we put in the lede sentence, it should end "... and president-elect of the United States". And there should be only one (businessman) or at most two (television personality seemed to be the most popular) professions listed in addition to "politician". --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with politician being redundant because the only political office Trump has had is the Presidency. Other Wikipedia articles are different because the individual had numerous political offices before (Senator or Governor, mayor, etc.) and were career politicians. This problem is solved for Trump if politician is not in the same sentence as President-Elect. Since MelanieN want "president" to be the first sentence, then it should be (for good prose) "Trump (1946- ) is the President-Elect of the United States. He is an American plumber, artist, politician, whatever." Usernamen1 (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN's comment makes sense. I believe we have consensus that the sentence should include "businessman" and end with "P(E)OTUS". It currently has "television personality" and "politician" as well, which I would personally remove as being redundant with President (Trump is noted for being the first non-politician to be elected President in U.S. history). Perhaps we could just vote on the inclusion of each term, to avoid juggling 25 options which will lead nowhere? — JFG talk 22:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that there is even consensus on the above, although near-consensus is possible at this moment. The 25 options may seem unwieldy at first but looking at things in totality is more accurate than piecemeal.
A few days ago, I explained a new proposal of a two sentence structure in a subsection below. There is not a consensus nor is it logical to have "politician" and "president-elect" in the same sentence. It would be similar to writing "Trump is an American politician, author, and a citizen of the United States" because American and U.S. citizen is redundant. Similarly, the only experience Trump has as a politician is President-elect (and President). Now, I have suggested a thoughtful compromise that is far better prose. That is to separate politician from President-Elect. Just read below. Essentially, it is "Trump is an American real estate developer, businessman, television personality, and politician. He has been designated President-Elect (or similar wording)." Alternatively, "Trump is the President-Elect of the United States. He is an American real estate developer, businessman, etc...".
Not only does the 2 sentence structure eliminate redundancy within the same sentence but President-Elect is a title while the others are professions. That avoids a valid argument that the sentence reads "Trump is the former CEO of the Trump Organization, executive producer of Celebrity Apprentice, and President-Elect of the United States", which is a sentence with only titles.
I am editing for Wikipedia integrity and good articles, which is why I raise these redundancy issues. Don't oppose me but oppose bad prose that is not apparent to the non-critical eye.
When others agree on the wisdom on the 2 sentence structure to avoid redundancy, then you can debate the order of the professions, be it time spent, prestige, achievements, etc. To me, that is a much smaller issue. Businessman actually gives Trump more credit than deserves because he hasn't been a very successful a businessman (water, steak, Trump Univ.) other than real estate. So consider "real estate developer, politician, and television personality" unless you want to promote Trump as a bigger than life person. (This commentary should not be construed as support for "politician" if in the same sentence as "President-elect" because of redundancy reasons making it bad prose). Usernamen1 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we write this with two sentences instead of one, there will still be a debate about calling Trump a politician independently of his presidential campaign and election. We should settle that before optimizing the prose. — JFG talk 07:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to return to existing discussion

In case I wasn't clear: I consider the new proposal of 12 options, most of them brand new and all of them completely ignoring the previous discussion, to be an unhelpful distraction. I encourage people to ignore these new options rather than try to choose among them. Commentary on the current lede sentence "American politician, businessman, and President-elect of the United States", or the one Usernamen deleted "American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States", or other tweaks, can continue below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the latter: "American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States." It ticks all boxes, it's neutral, well supported by sources and consistent with other articles on presidents and politicians in general. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this list although a bit long to my taste. However, I would submit that the natural order should be "businessman, TV personality, politician and PEOTUS". Seeing him labeled "politician" first is a bit jarring considering the reality of his life up until his recent campaign. — JFG talk 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the preceding, contrary to my earlier statement. The fact that "politician" is most recent does not make it most important in the totality of his life, especially considering that he will very likely cease being a politician in 4 or 8 years. Also, since "PEOTUS" is obviously an abbreviation for brevity here, I'll assume that "TV" is as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Yes, "TV personality" is supposed to read "television personality" if this title is adopted. — JFG talk 07:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Politician" should come first because that is Trump's current defining characteristic. Since he announced his campaign, he's been a constantly politicking politician, with all other roles being more or less sidelined. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: You are correct that Trump has been quasi non-stop "politicking" since he launched his campaign, however that still amounts to 18 months of his 70-year life. Not the dominant thing for his overall biography page. As an encyclopedia, we should not overly focus on current circumstances, no matter how overwhelming they sound. — JFG talk 07:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN call to ignore options is stifles true consensus. By considering the sentence in totality, there may be a true consensus. Considering only one word at a time risks a lop-sided result, such as "Trump is a TV personality and President-elect of the United States."

In the heated discussion, we have forgotten that some have advocated very redundant prose. We should all agree that "Trump is an American businessman, business person, and President-elect" is stupid because businessman and person are nearly the same. Now think of Trump's politician role. Was he US Senator from New York? Was he New York City Mayor? Was he First Lady in drag? No! Trump's only political job has been President-elect. So to say "Trump is an American politician, ..... and President-elect" is redundant and, therefore, bad prose.

I am very open minded. There are some who like the word "politician". Rather than fight, I offer a new alternative, alternative 24, which shows I am very open to discussion. Alternate 25 is to write "Trump is an American politician (and other stuff)" but end there. In another sentence, mention Trump is President-elect. That way, it provides further description, not a redundant sentence. Which sentence comes first should be an easier discussion. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? Usernamen1 (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an innovative and also logical idea. It would generate about 10 more options, making it 35 options. Here is a sample.
Donald John Trump (Listeni/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American real estate developer, businessman, television personality and politician. He is expected to take office as (change to "became" later) the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2017. See how less redundant that is compared to "Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American real estate developer, businessman, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States"? Usernamen1 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Absent reading any clear and convincing alternative, the bolded text is not my favourite but appears to address some of the redundancy concerns that I alerted the Wikipedia audience about. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would be very lucky to get a 25% plurality out of 25 options, and no option with 75% opposed can be considered a consensus. Exercise in futility proving, once again, the age-old wisdom that "the perfect is the enemy of the good". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That type of thinking resulted in Trump getting elected. Instead 25 options, think of 10 more. Then weed out the weakest. You'll be more likely to get a better result than a very short list for a complex issue. That would be like the Iranian nuclear issue; you only have two choices, an Iranian bomb or the US supplies Iran with aircraft carriers and stealth bombers. Likewise "Trump is an American television personality and President-elect" or "Trump is an author and politician" are both probably not a choice that people would like very much. We must strive very extremely good because like Trump or hate Trump, the presidential biography is supposed to be a good article or featured article eventually. Believe me, Sad! (last part is parody) Usernamen1 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I read you, what you're suggesting would require multiple rounds of !voting, probably at least three, with each round lasting at least a week. The last round should include only the leading two choices. That is the only objective way to "weed out the weakest". I am not opposed to such an approach, since, while it would take weeks, unlike other approaches it would at least almost guarantee a consensus at the end of that period. If that's what we're doing, we should stop diddling around and get it started. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is quite objectively possible to get a settled answer from five options, or even 25 options(!), in a single round of voting, by using instant run-off voting, or by using ranked choice voting. There are a few municipal elections that are IRV, and just a few months ago Maine passed legislation to use a form of ranked-choice voting. We could also use the kind of approval voting that arbcom is elected with, see WP:ACE2016. The trouble is that wikipedia-talkpages are not very conducive to such advanced usage, and setting up securePoll or similar (as is done for the arbcom thing every year) or setting up a physical location (as is done in Maine and San Francisco and other realworld elections), is probably not worth it for a one-off. We could make it work, here on the talkpage, but it would be a bit of a mess getting the mechanics worked out. Probably not something worth attempting on an article like Donald Trump... but then again, *only* controversial articles with difficult disputes need this kind of multi-round-bangvoting, so maybe we should think about trying something a bit off-the-wall. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#All Presidents are politicians? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It sure would've been nice to know about this little bit of forum shopping a few days ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC has been aborted, disregard. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And then the discussion was "re-opened" by another editor without re-adding the {{Rfc}} and without removing the {{archive top}}. I am not going to try to sort out that mess. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Areas for improvement

Real estate

The current version reads In 2001, Trump completed Trump World Tower, a 72-story residential tower across from the United Nations Headquarters.[75] Trump also began construction on Trump Place, a multi-building development along the Hudson River. He continued to own commercial space in Trump International Hotel and Tower, a 44-story mixed-use (hotel and condominium) tower on Columbus Circle which he acquired in 1996,[76] and also continued to own millions of square feet of other prime Manhattan real estate.[77]

Trump acquired the former Hotel Delmonico in Manhattan in 2002. It was re-opened with 35 stories of luxury condominiums in 2004 as the Trump Park Avenue.[78]

The former Hotel Delmonico is such an obscure project not worthy of a Presidential biography. On the other hand, Trump World Tower is a significant project of Trump's. This is an example of the need for article improvement.

On the other hand, my experience from just a few days is that there is serious fighting just to change one word, "politician" that improving the article will be very difficult except for one who spends hours on Wikipedia. Sorry to see that.

Usernamen1 (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. I totally wish other editors would just do what I want without all the argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best sex ever

I'm closing this. There was never even a suggestion for a wording or source to add to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I swear there was a story that he was quoted as saying this. But it may be considered BLP non-compliant because it is so embarrassing. Usernamen1 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quote by Marla Maples, his second wife. Not that he doesn't brag about his talent himself… — JFG talk 05:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her views might change now she's with Prince Harry.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's Meghan Markle. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Best Sex Ever" story is Trump propaganda. Why would we repeat that here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health

There is a small subsection shown below.

Health

A medical report by his doctor, Harold Borstein M.D., showed that Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid function were in normal range.[554][555] Trump says that he has never smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or consumed other drugs.[556] He does not drink alcohol.[557][558][559]

Self serving and fits poorly in the article. Who knows, someone may put Trump's penis size, a topic during the campaign, here in the health section? I move that this section be removed but that the cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol information be moved to the early life section because his brother died of complications from substance abuse, causing Trump to choose to abstain.

Also the Family of section could be combined with the early life so people can read about Trump's family and early life together in one spot. Usernamen1 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New sample article

The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.

I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands. Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721

Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat.

Comments? Usernamen1 (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding your version to the current version and then subtracting the least important material. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't do that. Once again, trying to rewrite the whole article by yourself is a non-starter. I suggest that you take, at most, a paragraph that you want to use to replace a current paragraph and propose it here. For starters, taking just your opening lede paragraph, "Donald John Trump (Listeni/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American billionaire businessman, real estate developer and the 45th President of the United States. Having no prior experience as an elected politician, he took the oath of office of the Presidency on January 20, 2017." Nobody has proposed putting "billionaire" in the lede sentence and I would oppose it. "Real estate developer" and "businessman" are redundant. Whether you like it or not, there IS consensus to say "politician" in that sentence. And you do NOT have consensus for pointing out "never before held public office" to the lede sentence; in fact, nobody but you has suggested that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamen1: MelanieN's comment is very much on point. Leave the lead alone for now. You can, however, try adding or subtracting short passages elsewhere. ('Short' meaning no more than a single sentence.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources, OR

This edit misrepresents the source and also utilizes a false edit summary. The source does not say that "FBI did not support the CIA assessment". What the source actually says is that "The FBI official’s remarks to the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were, in comparison, “fuzzy” and “ambiguous,”". "Fuzzy and ambiguous" is not the same. The article also goes on to explain what accounts for the difference. FBI makes statements that can be upheld in a court of law, which is a very high burden of proof. CIA provides intelligence assessments. So there's no contradiction here. The source also goes on to say that the FBI does indeed believe in Russian involvement, and it does indeed believe it was "one way" (i.e. in favor of Trump), where it differs from the CIA is on the question of what the goal of this pro-Trump Russian meddling was. That's it. Without that context, the inserted text is clearly NPOV, involves OR and is a misrepresentation of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. That's why I fixed a similar edit by the same contributor on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much misuse, as blatant misrepresentation. I have corrected the material to reflect what the source actually wrote.- MrX 19:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates

I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here.Casprings (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RM notice

There is a request to move Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations to Donald Trump sexual assault allegations. See the associated talk page if interested. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the title of author deleted from the first sentence in the lead?

He is credited with at least two books, both being best sellers.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. See the discussion here. Consensus is that when someone becomes president elect, other titles and achievements take second place. See other articles about presidents and you will see that even those with best-selling books (for example Barack Obama or John F. Kennedy) are not described as "author" in the lede sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on including "false" in the lede

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

Options

Option 1: Keep the existing wording:

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.[1][2][3][4][5]

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

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

Option 3: Proposed new wording:

Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false.[1][2][6][7]

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

4_A. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate.[8][9][10]
4_B. Along with his existing status as a celebrity, such statements resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate."(Added Dec.15th)[8][9][10]

Option 5:

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

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

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

NEW

Late addition: Option 1A
Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.[1][2][11][12][13]
Late addition: Option 1B
Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false[1][2][14][15][16] but those news sources do not accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial or false statements.
Option 1B is to provide context and because I believe Wikipedia editors may be trying to make that inference. There could be an option 1C that adds "but those news sources also accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial and false statements" but I don't know if that is true. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "The 'King of Whoppers': Donald Trump". FactCheck.org. December 21, 2015.
  2. ^ a b c d Holan, Angie Drobnic; Qiu, Linda (December 21, 2015). "2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". PolitiFact.com.
  3. ^ Finnegan, Michael (September 25, 2016). "Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  4. ^ Cillizza, Chris (July 1, 2016). "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  5. ^ Dale, Daniel; Talaga, Tanya (November 4, 2016). "Donald Trump said 560 false things, total". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  6. ^ Finnegan, Michael (September 25, 2016). "Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  7. ^ Cillizza, Chris (July 1, 2016). "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  8. ^ a b Gass, Nick (June 14, 2016). "Study: Trump boosted, Clinton hurt by primary media coverage". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  9. ^ a b "$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump". The New York Times. March 15, 2016. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  10. ^ a b Sides, John (September 20, 2016). "Is the media biased toward Clinton or Trump? Here is some actual hard data". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  11. ^ Finnegan, Michael (September 25, 2016). "Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  12. ^ Cillizza, Chris (July 1, 2016). "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  13. ^ Dale, Daniel; Talaga, Tanya (November 4, 2016). "Donald Trump said 560 false things, total". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  14. ^ Finnegan, Michael (September 25, 2016). "Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  15. ^ Cillizza, Chris (July 1, 2016). "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  16. ^ Dale, Daniel; Talaga, Tanya (November 4, 2016). "Donald Trump said 560 false things, total". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
Survey

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

  • Option #1 as that best fits WP:NPOV since multiple high quality WP:RS reflect that view. We can cobble at least a dozen sources to support this. Would compromise with option #3 if necessary, but the excessive wordiness and qualifications seems too much. Strong oppose to #2 as it is, at best, incomplete. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 I think the word "false" may well be excessive, as to declare something "false" means, more or less, that the person/entity doing the review made a thorough review of all relevant facts and determined that the claims were, in fact, false. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases of politics, it isn't the case that all relevant facts are necessarily always available. I might also support option 3, if perhaps the word "false" were changed to "unsupported," which I think is probably a more accurate description of the conclusions of the reviews which have been made. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 - as EvergreenFir said, this is amply supported by multiple, high-quality, reliable-sources, and is extremely important in the context of Trump's career. The historic significance is underscored by the large number of sources describing the level and consistency of the false statements as unprecedented. To omit it would be extremely misguided. Like EF, I would compromise with Option #3 if necessary, but it is needlessly wordy. I strongly oppose #2. Neutralitytalk 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 because we need to have a neutral tone. Alternatively, I wonder if an alternative to "false" could be found that better describes the issue, e.g., "unsubstantiated".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #4 I think we should mention that they are false, as it is non a violation of neutrality policies if they are. However I do agree with that should have the extra sentence to clarify why it happened, but I believe it could be more concisely written as Partly as a result of his existing celebrity status and not as Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity which was proposed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 It is what it is, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't need to hide or obscure this important fact with weasel words. I acknowledge John Carter's point that some of what Trump has said (and the subsequent fact checking) is open to interpretation but there's a sufficient number of unequivocal, blatant falsehoods to warrant the current wording with no fear of bias. WaggersTALK 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 Backed up by multiple WP:RS and WP:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 This would seem pretty straightforward. Not only is it amply supported by reliable sources, but also it has been a relatively stable sentence in a contentious article for over two months. For editors concerned with the word "false", perhaps it might be better to rewrite the sentence to instead use "falsehoods" (a common word used by fact-checking organizations). Arguments for removing "false" are pretty absurd. Multiple reliable sources over a long period support the position that Donald Trump lies on a regular basis, so I would say it is a kindness to Trump to say that many of his statements are "false" or "falsehoods" when it is clearly understating the egregiousness of his legendary mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only been stable because we're not allowed to change it. I'd be edit warring right now if it wouldn't result in a ban. Morphh (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 That's what the RSs say. Objective3000 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 per all of the above except the "not censored" part. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED as I understand it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 per WP:DUE. Substantially the same as #1, but clearer. I think most readers understand that the major fact-checkers are as close to Objective Truth as we ever get, so this is not the usual attribution as "someone's opinion". They understand that those evaluations are the results of reasonably rigorous research, and that they haven't survived as major fact-checkers without fairly good track records for accuracy. Option #3 tells the reader where we got our information, and that this is not merely the consensus view of a group of Wikipedia editors. Further, the words "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" are important. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #4_B/4_A + #3, would accept #3 alone however... against #2 as whitewash, against #1 as logically a sin of false numerical equivalence, #6 is a slight improvement, #5 is good faith but suffers from over-specificity and selection bias. The fundamental bug in option#1 is that is says "many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" which can logically be simplified to say "many of his statements were false". The problem is not the word 'false' here, that is not disputed, the problem is the word 'many'. Compared to what? Compared to other candidates? Compared to the 1804 election when candidates were accused of being satanists? According to whom? WaPo? Rival candidates for the Republican nomination? Too many questions here. Option#2 avoids the problem, by keeping 'many' but removing 'false'. Option#4-and-#3 attempts to solve the problem, by splitting 'many...controversial' away from the 'some...false' language, which is an improvement. It is still weasel-words, but it is no longer as biased. It is hard to argue that Trump never said any outright false things, or against their being relatively enough of them that it deserves mention in the lead-paragraphs. It is *also* hard to argue that he said an EQUAL NUMBER of controversial things, as the number of things he said that were outright false; practically every single thing he said was controversial to somebody, whereas the things he said that were false did not rise to *quite* such quantitative heights. Option#1 conflates two things together, and omits that they are substantively distinct in quality AND quantity. To be crystal clear, I do not particularly care if 'some...false' is the qualifier used. I would also be happy with 'many...controversial' followed by 'an unprecedentedly vast number of...false' statements, because that gives the flavor of what we are talking about here. Trump is much more controversial than other candidates, and also much more prone to falsehoods than other candidates, not just in 2016 but in the past N generations. But it is unfair to paint his quantity of falsehoods, as being equal in number to his quantity of controversial statements. That is what option#1 does, and what option#3 (plus #4) attempts to correct. I consider this to be a question of following the WP:Accuracy_dispute guideline. Like the comment by EvergreenFir and Neutrality mention, I am happy to see the wordy choices of "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" be cut down, and I see little wrong with saying "a relatively large number of falsehoods". Or taking a cue from John Carter, "a relatively large number of unsupported statements and outright falsehoods." But the key word is 'relatively' here, and the key structural change is splitting 'false' away from 'many...controversial' as used in the just-prior sentence-clause. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to cover #4_B, #5, and #6 (see insertions above). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #6 (just added), but could agree to Option 3 and 4. Would also be fine with including fact checker attribution to 6 and I'm fine with alternative terms to false. Added a new option 6, because I didn't like any of the others. We can't leave #1 because it's in WikiVoice and the generalization of the body of statements and the selective assessment of statements is someone's judgement, which makes it subjective. It needs to be attributed outside of WikiVoice Morphh (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1, seeing as nothing seems to have changed regarding its validity. Oppose #2 strongly unless someone can demonstrate that the veracity of his statements has changed; if it hasn't WP:DUE requires the inclusion of the material. The "reference frame" of NPOV compliance (=when an article is neutral) is set by reliable sources, not by some kind of "balance". About #3, it seemed to me that the veracity of claims is based on comparing the number of falsehoods to the total amount of claims checked, not necessarily between candidates. #4 is claiming that the large number of falsehoods in his claims is merely a matter of the base rate fallacy, in these terms - if nobody can substantiate that the base rate fallacy is indeed the reason why so many of his statements have been deemed false, oppose #4 as a misrepresentation. #5 seems like it may run afoul of WP:UNDUE unless that percentage - and only that percentage - is discussed by many other sources. About #6, I don't think the comments on the veracity of his statements fall under the scope of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at all. And if memory serves, when people talk about Trump's statements being often incorrect they are talking about the statements being incorrect, not just about people calling them incorrect. So unless that memory is incorrect, oppose #6 as well as a misrepresentation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #6. Not #1. Historical note: Trump purposely made many statements that were false, outlandish, and offensive so as to divert Clinton into focusing her campaign message on his temperament rather than on economic change, causing her to lose the Rust Belt. Michael Scherer, "Donald Trump: The Person of the Year", Time, December 19, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #1 because it's true and not any less neutral than the other options. However, I would accept option #2 as well because "controversial" can encompass the falsehood of many of his statements in his campaign. κατάσταση 04:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - Though option 6 would also handle the statement being too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact -- which does not fit with WP:V where support is Op-Ed viewpoint expressions. Actually my impression was that Hillary was the one more characterized as 'deceptive' and that Trump was more 'controversial or offensive' (and sometimes just called nuts). Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 and don't really think this RfC is warranted since we already had one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 It is certainly well-sourced and the mainstream media agrees fully, which is how Wikipedia works. Plus, it highlights for the reader and draws Attention with a capital 'A' to the in general political sensibilities of Wikipedia editors, their consensus and their completely understandable animosity towards pretty much everything Trump says. Although we cannot explicitly alert the reader to the nature of Wikipedia consensus and how it is reflected in political articles, indirect indications such as this will suffice as an alternative and serve a useful purpose. Marteau (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, largely per EvergreenFir. Option 3 is not terrible, but it's wordy and amounts to putting the source into the sentence, which shouldn't be necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • not option 4 Due to the heated nature of this talk page, I am now limiting comments only to the first 1-2 sentences of the lede except I am making a small exception. Option 4 raises issues that appear to be opinion. That is not to say that other options contain opinion but attention was given to other non-celebrity candidates. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - It's is not our role to call out things as "false" or "true", it's not even for us to say that things are "controversial". These are opinions, and carry that kind of weight when we use those phrases. We can point out that people disagree with Donald Trump or have made claims to the contrary of what he has said, but any phrasing such as the words I put in quotes denotes a kind of opinion, a choosing of sides as to who is right and who is wrong. Even Hitler's Wikipedia page introduction does not use the word "controversial" to describe him, it relies on facts of what was done and by whom and to whom. Simply say that people disagree with Donald Trump and have opposed him, and have done with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option Zero – Remove the sentence entirely. Given the walls of text consumed in this new debate as well as in prior ones, this sentence looks irremediably flawed. The article text in the campaign section accurately explains his way of speaking, the exaggerations and untruths, the findings from fact-checkers and the impact of this unprecedented approach on Trump's coverage, with the New York Times going so far as admitting to drop "normal" journalism ethics because Trump's campaign was "not normal". I have not seen a proposal yet which would accurately reflect this part of the article contents in the lead section, as we should. Instead, we've got this blanket characterization that "many statements were false" backed by 5 different citations (as if we have to prove it to readers) and no space for a finer analysis. Yes, Trump says weird things, which contributed to his popularity and his eventual election, but also to the backlash against him. No, his words should not be taken literally, and Wikipedia should not fuel the fire of controversy. — JFG talk 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1/4: Preferably without "controversial", as that is a separate issue which is harder to quantify objectively - i.e., something like "He frequently made false statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate." zzz (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 is my preference, Option 3 is also fine. I don't much care for #1 (because it generates too much argument) or #6 (we don't have to soften "controversial" by saying "characterized as", everybody agrees his statements were and are controversial), and I oppose #2 (because it omits "false") and #5 (inappropriate for the lede). --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4B - This wording contrasts Trump with other politicians in the past and explains why his "False" statements are important. By leaving "Opinion 1", it creates an illusion that Trump is the only candidate who had said controversial and/or false statements. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 as the term "false" as it used is POV. The fact that we even have this discussion points out that "false" is not unequivocal. It is by definition, therefore, a non-neutral POV. That cannot be erased by how passionately people hold that view so it needs to be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 as it is concise and accurately states what fact checkers and major RS have said. Strong Oppose to Option 2 as it is misleading and post-factual.Daaxix (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or Option 4. Option 1; WP:DUE. Option 5 is inappropriate, Option 6; same reason as Option 1. Adotchar| reply here 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #2 or just remove that line totally. Something like this would never get into obama's page that he lied about obamacare. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/) KMilos (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 or 6. Saying that a lot of his statements were controversial already strongly implies that the statements were considered by many people to include false material. But if we keep "false" in the lead, it should not be in wikivoice (even better than that would be to replace the controversial word "false" with a specific example or two of his most egregious falsities).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, supported by reliable sources, no need to sugar-coat it. 201.27.125.81 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - The preponderance of sources have not backtracked on their original reporting and fact checking in which they concluded that Trump has made many false statements. In the original RfC, fully 33 editors supported the current wording, and their arguments were seen to have more weight than the 21 who opposed it, by a large margin. The only thing that has changed since September is that Trump is now the President-elect. That fact does not change anything about how we should describe the conclusions reached by numerous reputable sources. Sources continue to amplify the fact that Trump "has little regard for the facts" [41]; that he continues to make false statements [42][43][44]; and in opinions expressed in reputable publications, that he outright lies.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Our responsibility to our readership is to present unvarnished, verifiable facts without sweetening their meaning with euphemisms (option 2), and word salads and equivocation (options 3, 4, and 6). It's ironic that our definition of reliable sources is based on reputation for fact checking and accuracy, yet while no one has challenged the reliability of these many available sources, they still express doubt that the sources actually checked facts. Astonishing.- MrX 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Irrespective of references, "false" inevitably reads like the judgement or opinion of the person who wrote the article. For this reason, wording such as "were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" is preferable. 109.146.248.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should we take this as a comment in favor of option 3? --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret it as meaning "definitely against option#1" with some implied lean towards #3, but they might also be happy with #4 or #5 (they don't say). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion – RfCs with several options to choose from rarely end up with a convincing consensus. I would suggest proposing only one variant. Alternately, a more elegant solution might be to remove the iron-clad "this wording has consensus" notice in the code, as it refers to a campaign-time RfC and it is obvious from the discussion above that consensus has changed to a point where there is literally neither consensus today for that wording nor against it. Hence I would suggest closing this RfC as an inefficient process and just let editors play with the wording as they please. Sure, there might be some warring but there also might emerge some creative solution acceptable by most editors. — JFG talk 07:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's going to be difficult for a new consensus to emerge with a multiple choice RfC, but has the past has shown us, editors frequently make ad hoc proposals in RfCs anyway. I firmly disagree with letting editors play with the wording, given how difficult it was to arrive at the current consensus, and the recent influx of WP:SPA and sockpuppet accounts.- MrX 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with MrX. Something this contentious needs the structure and order of the RfC process, and letting editors play with the content often results in the content being determined by those with the most endurance, not a good way to determine content. If the RfC could be better framed, start over and reframe it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to abandon any consensus version and just let editors "play with the wording as they please" would be incompatible with the Discretionary Sanctions in effect at this page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RfC being held is just fine, although the outcome will be ambiguous (because people will leave short comments only giving their opinion on one aspect). Once this RfC is over, rather than implementing immediately whatever the closer believes was the outcome, it might be a good idea to do as JFG suggests, and have a yes-or-no type of RfC on whatever language is the "winner" from this multi-choice RfC process. We may end up with option#1 being the winner from this discussion, and then have a yes-or-no discussion about whether option#1 is still the consensus... and if *that* future discussion ends in no consensus for change, well then, in some ways we wasted our time. But simply having the shortlist of four (or five) options, that THIS current RfC has formulated, is itself helpful; it narrows down the problems people have with the extant September-consensus wording. Which will be useful a year from now, when and if this comes up again. Nobody said wikipedia is an efficient process! JFG should know that from participating in earlier talkpage discussions here.  :-) Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere - Yes, and that's even without requiring separate debates about whether a consensus is in fact a consensus. That's probably why that is never done (to my finite knowledge, that is). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 47.222.203.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I know it all too well, that's part of the charm of this project… Believe it or not, some topics are thornier than Trumpianisms. The epic New York titling debates of 2002–2016 last resulted in "no consensus on whether we have consensus to agree that there is no consensus". For your entertainment: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. — JFG talk 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, it has been done at least once. Short of spending hours researching that at my slow reading speed, it looks to me like certain editors' disruptive refusal to accept a legitimate uninvolved close because it didn't go their way. The solution is policy that forbids that, while providing some recourse to deal with editors who show a lack of competence to close complex debates (that doesn't appear to be the case there). It is axiomatic (but invisible to many) that inadequate process rules result in monumental time sinks around relatively unimportant issues like the title of a single article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - don't like how it was set up. It guarantees that it stays the same. I added Option 6, but not sure if it's too late for people to review it. The problem with current wording should have been laid out as you can see, people are just going to say it's supported by multiple RS without seeing the problem that the current wording violates NPOV and BLP. Morphh (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the "option 5" proposal, to cite a percentage of false statements given by one source: I think that is appropriate for the article text but not for the lede. The reason for having it in the lede is that it has been WIDELY reported, by many sources with different numerical results, but the common conclusion that the number of false statements is unusually high compared to other politicians. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been suggestions to replace "false" with "unsupported" or "unsubstantiated". That would misrepresent the sources, which evaluated his false claims by the "pants on fire" standard, meaning provably false - as when he denied ever having said something that he clearly did say. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you missed the problem altogether with this RFC. The problem wasn't the word false, it was the use of WikiVoice and quantifying it with a weasel word "many", then applying it to a generalization. As many have said, the RS support that he made false statements. That's not the problem with the sentence. It's taking a judgement about those cherry picked statements and stating as fact a generalization. Morphh (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if I need to point this out, but the sources used as RS are media organizations that openly supported Clinton. And there are plenty of sources with Trump's team calling them dishonest. So it adds an additional POV element to it and I think !votes that say "the sentence is supported by the RS" should be measured when we're talking about stating this in WikiVoice. Morphh (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I look forward to your providing equally research-based reports from independent reliable sources demonstrating that Trump did NOT, in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest. ("Trump's team" doesn't count. They are neither independent nor reliable. Of COURSE they disagree - what would you expect them to do?) As for the editorial position taken by the papers, that's irrelevant - as long as they are sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence of the news/reporting side from the editorial/opinion side. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • MelanieN well, you could perhaps visit the Fox fact checker, but really the 'fact-checkers' are just not the level of normal journalism reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence you seem to think, they are just Op-Eds from external writers to the paper for example Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton. It's an innovative serial format to make use of web journalism, and perhaps worthy to have regular sniping at politician blurbs besides SNL, and for WP use may have WP:WEIGHT of prominence. But it's not due for much more credence and there are enough criticisms on the web about bias and folks taking this too seriously somewhat mentioned at Fact checking. There's just no overall evaluation, or consistent stated basis of evaluation or even of which statements to pick -- it's apparently just whatever of the copious choices spouted that a writer thought most entertaining to review and if it's not badly written ranting or making stuff up it might go forward. I don't even have to go into the fine difference between 'fact', 'evidence' and 'truth' here -- I just have to point to RS sections on WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, fact checkers are NOT "Op-Eds". Sort of the opposite in fact. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how we approach sources. Also, this "Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton" is just ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that we should judge the reliability of sources based on what state/area they're located in? Might want to re-read WP:RSN. In light of such comments your !vote should be appropriately discounted since it is based on complete ignorance of policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volunteer Marek I'll respond in some detail. Fact checkers are opinion articles that should follow guidelines according to my cited WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG. I'm pointing out that stating this line as an article opinion (or else not having the word inquestion) would be more faithful to the WP guidelines and faithfully setting out the cites and that it is only a particular kind of cite involved. Particularly applicable of WP:NEWSORG I think are the bits
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. "
"Whether a 'specific' news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."
"One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."
And as an opinion of statements the WP:RS section WP:BIASED also applies, note particularly "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." and "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source."
  • For the Washington Post ... allegations of it as biased or part of general media bias has been mentioned in prominent places such as Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal_bias and MediaMatters.org, so regardless of what you or I may feel, the WP:BIASED guide says to attribute the statement. It seems loosely credible -- the paper is writing from a DC-located viewpoint, has an editorial board that endorsed Clinton including with statements like Trump was "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America's enemies," and said if he's elected president, "he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world" here. Though the paper also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies. (Being a DC paper, perhaps critiquing her skill relative to the rest of DC rather than condemning it ? ;-) )
  • The Washington post fact-checker series associated to the paper differs from say the Politifact in that it's a 2-reporter series with a link for outsiders to provide topic suggestions that they pick at will from, includes numerous unrated articles and sort of public information items ('guide to detecting fake news', 'everything you need to know about obamacare', 'what may come up in the debate', etcetera). What they say about how they try to run it is as a 'reasonable person' feeling. They also state that differences in coverage for Trump versus Clinton do exist, with more looking at him since he said more. Demonstrably they only did 3 looks at a Clinton line in October for example...
  • Secondary views that are negative about their accuracy have been given -- both structurally that the concept is mostly to criticise which drives into inappropriately doing scores - like rating a SNL skit - or indulging in soapboxing like denigrating Cruz saying (correctly) that the tax code is longer than the bible with "This is a nonsense fact." The George Mason University study about Politifact would seem also true here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MelanieN, The sentence doesn't say anything about other candidates, nor what statements were selected and analyzed. If we were looking at a specific lie, then we could try to find a source that gives a different POV or accept it as such. What we have here is a generalization and quantification, which is fine and IMO an accurate one, but it doesn't make that judgement a undisputable fact. Trump's team can absolutely give their POV on any particular example to say how they think the statement was taken out of context or whatever. Turning it into a generalization can only be combatted with equal generalization, such as the media is dishonest. And there is no shortage or RS on that point, particularly with regard to the RS being used to support the statement. Morphh (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about option #6, "have been characterized as controversial or false": I don't think anyone contests that they were controversial, do they? I think it is only "false" that is at issue here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In today's highly polarized American politics environment, it's difficult for a high-level politician to open their mouth and say anything remotely meaningful without it being controversial. I would consider "controversial" a low-value word there, almost noise. In my opinion the word does not convey the meaning supported by RS and appears to be a compromise word that could be dropped with little or no cost to the article. Not that I'm suggestiing yet another option, that can wait for another day and another discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    MelanieN - I think 'characterized' is supported as it means only that something was prominently said which is where multiple prominent op-eds would WP:V even where the content is disputed or coming from biased sources. It also is reflecting as noteable a characteristization that it was not the usual platitudes. I think even the Trump camp has characterized the statements as controversial, and even in WP discussions so ironically 'controversial' seems non-controversial. Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is your measure of "many" (a large number relative to truthful statements) a subjective term an undisputed fact? You're using an assessment of select statements (likely controversial ones) which were analyzed by fact-checkers. That's fine, but you can't use that stick to measure the body of his statements without any attribution in WikiVoice. You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now. Morphh (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like an argument for option #3 (and I see Mandruss has changed his opinion from #1 to #3). Option 3 cites exactly where we are getting the information - from fact-checking organizations - and the reader can evaluate how much weight they give to the reports of fact-checking organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for #3 as well and I like the #4 addition. I think Dervorguilla added an excellent quote from Time Magazine that is appropriate for the sentence context. My thought with adding 6, was that it was a minimal change to 1 which would make it compliant with policy by taking it out of WikiVoice. Morphh (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Morphh! But it would be more accurate to say, "Dervorgulla's excellent paraphrase from Time magazine..." :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Morphh: My measure of "many" is an undisputed fact. Trump makes false statements more often than truthful statements. In fact, the scope of his lying has been described as unprecedented. Many reliable sources (example) go so far as to state lying was part of Trump's campaign strategy. The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing, particularly when dealing with a BLP who has a tendencey to sue. Some of the other comments above by you, such as the one about how he makes more false statements than true ones, seem to ascribe to you a truly amazing degree of knowledge regarding every word spoken by the man, as it would only be someone who has such amazingly detailed knowledge who would be in a position to be able to determine the relative frequency of accurate and inaccurate statements. And the only "reliable source" among the "many" you allege exist about how "lying" was a part of the campaign strategy is from an editorial, which we rarely if ever consider truly "reliable" for anything other than the opinions expressed.
I am no fan of Trump myself, far from it, but I have to say that some of the comments being made here seem to me to be possibly be problematic in and of themselves, and might merit some sort of review, particularly if they assert things which, apparently, even the sources produced don't necessarily assert. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me making these statements. It's reliable sources. I linked to several in my comment. Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. That's why I chose "option 1", because any watering down of "false" would be an egregious failure of our duty to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that #3 waters anything down; if anything, it adds weight to the statement. It is not the usual hedging that we associate with attribution. I ask that you consider my !vote argument with an open mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey - re whether "undisputed fact"... Plainly 'false' is disputed even inside the current TALK. More of interest for article phrasing seems whether it is improperly stating an evaluation as an objective fact, is too vague such as whether this mixes in hyperbole and stupidity or which flavor of 'false' or what percentage of true there is, is unclear why the norm of a politician deception is noteworthy for this particular case, and so on. Since the article word seems putting forward a paraphrase specifically of the fact-checker content, then I think any article use of it should make that clear and reflect the WP:NEWSORG guidelines in both handling and attribution stating it as a specific kind of opinion. If the article line is looking for a generally not disputed overall characterization, then I think both parties have said 'controversial' and perhaps also 'sometimes offensive', but clearly disagree about 'false'. If you think the line is not to be only about the prominence of Politifact et al, then WP:NPOV applies and both positive and negative words would go in according to how prominent they were in use -- and I'm seeing "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, ..." so 'false' might not make the cut.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Markbassett, disagree that the word 'false' is disputed, by most people commenting here, at least. (If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false, as opposed to being false-on-the-basis-of-unsupported-by-evidence, false-on-the-basis-of-hyperbolically-decorating-the-plain-truth-for-'impact', or the more usual sort of false-on-the-basis-of-being-incorrect-without-further-clarification-of-meaning as well as false-by-accident.) There is little question that sources *do* very much say Trump said *more* false things than other candidates, in percentage terms and in absolute terms. But it is also the case that, as you point out with your list of negative-words, the bulk of the sources tend to criticize Trump's statements in terms of how controversial they were, WAY MORE than in terms of how truthy they were. The main thrust of proposal #3, as I see it, is to stop lumping the 'many...controversial' things in together with the *different* kind of 'relatively-many...false-things-according-to-fact-checkers'. (Personally I believe we could strip the according-to-fact-checkers-bit, as long as we keep the 'relatively' qualifier.) It is correct to say that the quantity of false things was nowhere NEAR the quantity of controversial things, but it would be borderline-non-neutral to simply remove mention of the high relative percentage of false things compared to other candidates (as #2 does in my view), just as it is inaccurate to lump the false things in with the controversial things as #1 does ("Trump has many apples or bananas" is the problem here... we need wikipedia to be saying that Trump had way more apples relative to other candidates, and also-comma had more bananas plus a higher percentage of bananas relative to other candidates.) Saying that without being too wordy is difficult, but #3 is a good start. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: Most fact-checker organizations use the term "false" with great specificity, when referring to statements that Trump has made that are untrue. There appears to be significant agreement on this talk page that "false" is the most appropriate term. Trump has also made statements that are offensive for a variety of reasons, so the catch-all "controversial" seems appropriate. Again, there appear to be significant agreement on this talk page that "controversial" fits those instances. I would also suggest an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey - the difference in an article wording TALK is that WP:V for both 'controversial' and 'offensive' exist from Trump and critics, so that wording would be regarded as commonly said (i.e. common meaning both say it). Whether a campaign sub-story (cites Dec 2015- Sep 2016) re 'false' still has enough prominence now to suit the lead would perhaps drive it out, and if it stays perhaps it will be rewritten for this or other reasons. And in a year or so other things may crowd it out anyway. Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two general comments in response to the above: 1) We are talking about the lede sentence, so detail and explanation are not appropriate. The detail and explanation go below in the text. The lede summarizes what is in the text. It is unusual to have citations in the lede, but that was recommended by the closer of the previous RfC. 2) It is simply incorrect to state that fact-checking sites are "op-eds". Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality. If someone says that Obama proposed admitting 200,000 Syrian refugees, and Obama actually proposed admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees, then the statement's truth or falsity is not a matter of opinion. If someone insists they never said something, and there is video proving that they did, that again is not a matter of opinion. That is the kind of statement that fact-checkers evaluate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I could, and will if anyone would like. NBC does fact-checking, so it seems like a fact-checking site, but maybe Melanie meant sites that exclusively do factchecking. Might I suggest that we focus on Trump's biggest falsity, and then consider it for inclusion in the lead, instead of including a vague assertion that smacks of namecalling? What we have now is equivalent to "liar, liar, pants on fire", and it might be better to say that Trump insisted the Earth is flat (assuming he said so), and leave it at that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie - the applicable policy for an evaluation isWP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Without an attribution it's neither clear what the line is referring to and the line is not following WP guidelines.
Secondly - the question of if this is a now past time item or something about a campaign no longer due elevation, may have lead somewhere -- about two thirds of commenters want to reword or delete the line. But it seems those are coming from many aspects and are scattered. It might narrow things down to ask which one folks LEAST want and then pick between the two remaining and work on the specific from there.
And -- you really are giving a fantasy above about fact checkers, but it's not the RFC so I'll suggest you simply accept input was given that opinions about statements are opinion pieces and move along. If you must debate how bad they are more than I've already provided above, then post to my TALK page and we'll see if we can pursue cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:Anythingyouwant, to answer your question, I do mean "sites that exclusively do factchecking" and that is the kind of source that is provided. And no, User:Markbasset, I do not accept your assertion that evaluating the truth of a statement by checking it against observable reality is an "opinion", any more that it is an "opinion" for a scientist to make a measurement, or a teacher to evaluate a test answer as correct or incorrect. I know that a prominent Trump surrogate recently claimed that "there are no such things as facts anymore,"[53] but I do not accept that - and I don't think Wikipedia does either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:MelanieN, I don't understand why we would want to prefer full-time fact-checkers to part-time fact-checkers, assuming they are both at reliable sources, but in any event the former can be just as fallible as the latter.[54][55]. If we want to refer to one as opposed to the other, can we please do so more clearly in the proposed language for the lead? Also, what do you think about the idea of mentioning one or two of Trump's biggest whoppers in the lead, instead of merely a vague accusation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not MelanieN, but I'll answer. It would be backwards to put a couple of examples in the lead instead of the concise summary that is currently there (see WP:LEAD). Trump's reputation for making false statement is not only documented by fact checking organizations. There is a very large body of sources to draw from. The American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source for checking facts from actual reliable sources.- MrX 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN -- Please base on WP guidelines -- WP:NEWSORG is the WP guidance that states any analysis is to be presented as attributed statement, i.e. that persons opinion, and WP:BIASED allowing attributed opinions. As to your beliefs re their nature ... they go against WP guidelines and are demonstrably not a match to the actual pages behavior or considering the points of their critics, particularly the selection bias of their picking is not an overall on the person or organized but seems largely an hot-item-of-the-day being critiqued however they want to. Seems a decent thing to have a place to ridicule politicians -- but also they seem just getting ratings, lack methodology, and just would not rate highly as sources by WP standards.
  • For example: (a) "exclusively do factchecking" nope ... Washington Post fact checker current first 19 items are 8 (42%) unrated articles; and even of rated items I see one condemning the internet at large about Pizzagate, and one aggregating up prior items to a worst of 2016 and not a direct check of someone ; and (b) "checking it against observable reality" -- note the lack of written guidance re methods of selection or mechanism of evaluation and subjective scoring. Looking at their first attributed piece "Trump’s outdated claims that China is devaluing its currency" ... they say "China hasn’t devalued its currency for about two years" ... not saying the specific fact there, and since the fact was August 15 of 2015 their "about two years" is exaggerated. That the Chinese currency controls still exist or that no devaluation steps have been needed since dollar has been rising lately were not mentioned as considered, nor is any alternative way to view the statement or any input of the other side. I can go with outdated a bit re 'devaluation' being a year ago, but why they awarded this 4 bad marks of a 'whopper' is unstated and unsupported by any literal metric or method -- it's just their subjective pick. Neither the 'about two years' nor the worst possible rating seem to meet WP norms of documenting, nor would the lack of other views pass the WP norms of NPOV.
  • Look, the Post site is just two columnists in a DC market or viewpoint that are writing items to get ratings for their website ... it's a nice enough thing but they're not claiming to be infallible or objective and WP guidance would not give these two columnists a ranking higher than scholarly pieces for the same topics. That at least one scholarly study cited another such site as biased and that other NEWSORG articles flame some of their pieces as ridiculous are demonstrable facts. WP practice does report notable opinions as a notable opinion and so this seems a reasonable prominence to be in the article -- but not as an imagined prefect measure of truth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your view of fact checking sources seems to be in the minority here, probably because it's founded on broken logic like source "not claiming to be infallible or objective". I suggest you raise your concerns at WP:RSN.- MrX 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What MelanieN said. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What MrX, MelanieN, and Objective3000 said. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBassett is pointing out that fact-checkers, just like journalistic organizations in general, can be *biased*. Fact-checkers are almost unique, actually, because their specific mandate is to cherrypick statements which can be proven false. "Donald Trump held a campaign rally in Ohio during December 2016" is obviously a statement, and it obviously has a truth-value (it might be pants-on-fire or it might be mostly false or partially false or whatever). In this case, it is *slightly* controversial because I said 'campaign rally' and technically the campaign season is over, and it was a presidential rally or maybe a presidential-transition-rally, but since it was paid for with leftover campaign funds,[citation needed] I'll rate the statement as Almost Entirely True. Point here is simple: telling MarkBassett to take his concerns to RSN is wrong. The problem is not that fact-checkers are non-reliable (by wikipedia standards), the problem is that we have to be very careful not to say things like "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump is a fucking liar" as some commenters seem to wish we would, when in fact the only way to neutrally phrase it is to say "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than other presidential candidates". Note that we CANNOT say, without violating NPOV, that "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than Hillary Clinton" unless we are positive that fact-checkers as a group are not suffering from systemic bias. MarkBassett is arguing that is NOT the case, and his argument is not invalid. But just as there are limits to how far you can go, with known-to-be-biased sources, there are also limits on how far we ought to restrict ourselves: comparing Trump vs Clinton is dangerous, because there is evidence that fact-checking-organizations as a group suffer from bias towards one of the parties, or at least, bias against Trump's party. Comparing Trump to not just Clinton, but to all ~~25 candidates (repub/dem/L/G) in the 2016 cycle, and especially to all 100+ major candidates since dedicated fact-checking organizations became a fad, and saying that "Trump makes more false statements relative to other candidates according to fact-checkers" is a perfectly valid summarization. But we have to be careful here, and communicate to the reader what we are actually saying, and what we are actually not. "Trump makes many false statements" is way too weasel-wordy of a summary, we need to be precise, even if that means we need to be a bit more wordy in our summarization. As simple as possible but no simpler. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamen1: - Re: [56][57][58] 1. Your editsum seems to say that my revert was improper per WP:TPO, but the RfC options are "public domain" and your additions are not "somebody else's comment". 2. As I stated in my editsum, Option 1 is for "status quo", "no change", and there is reason or benefit to muddying that water with an Option 1B that in fact requires a change. 3. As you have it now, Options 1 and 1A are the same option, adding to the confusion. 4. Your new option 1B could just as easily be a new option 7. 5. You are creating a mess (similar to the mess of an RfC you started at the WikiProject, which had to be aborted) and I respectfully suggest you use more caution until you have more experience with the organization of complex discussions and RfCs in particular. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Close early?

My summary of !voting to date follows. We could apply a weighted split-vote system in an attempt to be more precise, but in this case I think looking at only the first-stated !vote is sufficient. As we have a prior consensus for the current language (Option 1), and as the trend here seems clear enough, I think we should consider closing early. RfCs are automatically de-listed after 30 days, but there is no requirement to run one that long. By my reckoning Option 1 has 51.5%—only a slight majority, but a sizable plurality considering that there are 7 options (including Option 0). Comments?

1 - 17 - EvergreenFir, Neutrality, Waggers, Casprings, Scjessey, Objective3000, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Volunteer Marek, Marteau, Mike Christie, zzz (Signedzzz), Daaxix, 201.27.125.81, MrX, SPECIFICO, Sagecandor, Pete (Skyring)
1B possibly but not 1A - 1 - Usernamen1

2 - 6 - John Carter, Markbassett, Judgesurreal777, DHeyward, KMilos, Anythingyouwant

4 - 4 - Emir of Wikipedia, 47.222.203.135, MelanieN, Yoshiman6464

3 - 3 - Jack Upland, Mandruss, Adotchar

6 - 3 - Morphh, Dervorguilla, κατάσταση (Katastasi)

Not 4 - 1 - Usernamen1

0 (remove sentence) - 1 - JFG

5 - 0 ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite yet Thanks for the tally. But the RfC has been open only 5 days. Wouldn't a week be a normal minimum time to keep it open - recognizing that some people edit only on one or two days of the week? Let's look at this again on the 19th. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS and in the meantime please keep the tally current. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roger wilco. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw it looks like there are actually four !votes for option "4" (which has two slightly different wordings but is still the same option). So option 4 should probably be listed above the options that had only 3 supports. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's hard to see the benefit of two sub-options with no discernible difference in meaning. Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discernible difference, not to my own eyes, but to some people: read the notvote by Emir of Wikipedia saying they support #4, but without the 'partly as a result' portion (materially changing the meaning!), and the final comment over here by Jo-Jo Eumerus where they are okay with #4_B but see #4_A as a "misrepresentation" which is attempting to 'explain away' the prior sentence. Although I personally do not see much difference between 4_B and 4_A, they both sound the same to me, at least two wikipedians interpreted the phrases as being very distinct (and interpreted them differently from Mandruss and myself it seems!). I also think that whether to insert #4A/#4B as a supplement to the existing intro-sentences, is a distinct question from how to phrase the existing sentence about falsehoods, but that is a structural problem with RfC's where people only notvote for one single option. Speaking of which, although as yet they haven't modified their notvote text here, Jo-Jo Eumerus on their user-talkpage indicated that they would support #1 followed by #4_B (although not by #4_A). Does not change the tally above, since (structural limits again) as written #4B can only piggyback on #3, of course. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MelanieN that keeping the RfC open is preferred. There is always hope that new eyeballs will appear, who can sway the consensus with their wise input... plus from a practical standpoint closing this RfC early, actually changes nothing in mainspace, since the 'winning' option by nose-count is already in mainspace... so why hurry up and close something that results in no difference for the readership? Leave it open please. Lastly, although this nose-counting is not WRONG per se, it is just nose-counting. What matters is whether the arguments are policy-backed. Notvotes like "we already had an RfC months ago with different people participating" are obviously not policy-based arguments! WP:PRECEDENT does not apply, so I think the RfC is in reality closer than the nose-counting would indicate. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep open per RFC guidelines" . WP:RFCEND states that the default is an RFC open for 30 days. With an article like Trump, extra caution should be taken. Therefore, keeping it open for the full 30 days is wise. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, nose-counting was never intended to be the end-all, but it is useful information for discussions of early close. Absent some purpose like that, I would never produce tallies because I think they can influence !voting. But now that this section exists, I plan to keep the tallies updated per MelanieN's request unless we prefer to remove or hat this section. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 If people are uncomfortable with the word 'false," they should take issue with the source of the statements, not dissemble reality to suit their comfort levels. RL have been overwhelmingly clear in documenting the atomic basis of Trump's many lies. This wording wouldn't even be controversial hadn't he become a politician and improbably enough, the presumed president elect. (I'm user AgentOrangeTabby, but can't reset my PW right now). 71.91.30.188 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graves

For months, this BLP has included some material about Lucas Graves, who is perhaps the world's leading authority on "fact-checking" candidates by journalists. This was removed on December 10, and I have just reverted.[59] This BLP is superficial enough without deleting such thoughtful material. As far as I know, the removed material is completely uncontradicted, and so I doubt it's "undue". Here's the material in question:

References

  1. ^ Graves, Lucas (August 10, 2016). ""Deciding what's true" with Lucas Graves". WORT. This is an audio interview of Graves, author of Deciding What's True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism (Columbia University Press 2016). Note particularly the portion of audio beginning at 50:30.

I have added a similar source per request of the person who removed the Graves material.[60] Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, thanks for catching this. — JFG talk 07:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia photo

I know a section above, now closed, was discussing the photo, but maybe it's worth mentioning again and in its own section that the image used on most of the Trump articles and templates here is, because of the illusion of Trump "blowing smoke out his ear", just this side of ridiculous. Once you see that it can't be unseen, and although I appreciate the lol quality (and I do lol often when seeing it) and the surrealistic and social commentary made by the perceived image, I think it really should be deleted from not only those pages, but from the site. Randy Kryn 15:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be that guy, but no, we cannot selectively remove something in an image that was actually there in reality. It's text on the background behind the subject, not dust, red eye, or scratches.- MrX 17:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought that looked like smoke coming out of his ear. We're going to get a new, official White House photo of him in a little over a month. That will go in the infobox. Until then, patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I never noticed that until someone pointed it out (and Kryn, you commented in the RfC that you didn't either). I think we're fine provided (1) we don't add the caption, "Trump with blurred text behind him that is not smoke coming out of his ear" and (2) Trump supporters don't go viral with a "Wikipedia's chosen image of Trump is one that shows smoke coming out of his ear" campaign, thereby further proving Wikipedia's out-of-control liberal bias. This is textbook editor overthink. In any case, the smoke "problem" was raised in the RfC and the RfC failed nevertheless. It has received due process and it's time we dropped the infobox image issue, at long last. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't notice it until it was pointed out in the Rfc, but then there it was. I don't really care, and actually like it like that, but am thinking of the site rep. Dropping it now though (but it will still make me smile when I see it). Randy Kryn 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed it, but I have noticed a YEAR of arguments about the infobox photo. I hope it stops when Trump is president, but maybe it won't. Maybe the fact is that he's not photogenic.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

I'd like to change the picture of Donald Trump to make it look more presidential and professional unlike his current portrait which looks mediocre and unkempt. Ryke6171 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is a former Democrat?

I am not aware of this fact or any RS supporting this. As far back as the 1980s he has been involved in the Republican party and described by commentators as a conservative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI

45.58.89.66 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, look at the first two cited sources in the article. General Ization Talk 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)

Hatting. This is nothing but armchair psychology and borderline BLP violations. We are not going to be including any of this in the article and the discussion is venturing far afield. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have come across hundreds of newspaper articles and intervews where the claim is made that Trump is a narcissist and/or has NPD. In newspapers, many psychiatric professionals have diagnosed Trump as having NPD. It is difficult to avoid this angle when discussing Trump. Surely it must at least be viable to cover Trump's perceived narcissism in Wikipedia - as narcissism is not necessarily pathological - more of a character trait. At least two of Trump's Republican rival candidates accused Trump of being a narcissist. I heard Bruce Springsteen in an intervew accusing Trump of being a narcissist. Ideally this narcissism angle deserves a separste section somewhere. --Penbat (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this adds encyclopedic content to the article, no matter how many people believe it. It's not like observing that FDR was in a wheelchair -- closer to when Rubio indicated Trump's small hands, for which the Senator later apologized. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an apples to oranges comparison. Small hands presumably would not significantly affect the president-elect's performance and judgment as president. Narcissism and NPD most certainly could be expected to do so, presumably what the sources mentioned by the OP are saying. General Ization Talk 16:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Analogies aside, WP should be reporting rather than predicting Pres. Trump's performance and judgment. So, for example, we might cite sources that document experts' concern that he declines to attend presidential security/intelligence briefings and explains this by saying he's "a smart guy". On the other hand an encyclopedia should not present subjective assessments of his cognitive or emotional processes, e.g. he doesn't value expert advice because he has narcissist personality disorder, where they don't add to the factual narrative. SPECIFICO talk
The encyclopedia should be prepared to present "subjective assessments of his cognitive or emotional processes" made by and attributed to acknowledged experts in the field, and should not suppress these opinions. General Ization Talk 16:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"[M]any psychiatric professionals" is a very general description of those who may have made this claim. Are there any acknowledged experts on NPD who have done so? This would have to be extremely well sourced and presented neutrally, presumably with in-text attribution. General Ization Talk 16:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for Springsteen and Trump's Republican rivals: because narcissism is both a clinical term and a popular one, and the popular definition is not always consistent with the clinical definition, I would say that no, their claims do not belong in the article as the speakers are not psychiatric professionals and hence are unqualified to make a clinical diagnosis. I would stay away from trying to make a distinction here between "perceived narcissism" and the clinical term, as that is a very slippery slope. We have an article for that, which is constrained by WP:MEDRS. General Ization Talk 16:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
everyone who tries to be leader of a country is a puppet or a narcissist, sometimes maybe both. Idiot "psychologists" think this is some breaking news or genius insight, "people who see themselves as the one person able to lead millions of other people have high view of themselves". wow!!! KMilos (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you that some degree of narcissism is a typical trait of government leaders. I assume that the sources referred to by the OP are indicating that the degree of narcissism reflected by our subject is atypical, and if so, and the sources are experts, that is a notable observation. General Ization Talk 16:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the [Goldwater Rule]. Basically this states that one should not opine on the psychiatric makeup of a person you haven’t examined, and without authorization. So, we have a problem on quoting experts in the field of psychology on this subject as they might be violating the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. And, as KMilos says above, there’s nothing surprising about a presidential candidate being narcissistic. (Personally, I think anyone that wants to be president, shouldn’t be allowed.) Also, NPD sounds like a mental illness, when I think it’s really just a character formation. Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Goldwater Rule governs the actions of psychiatric professionals, not editors of encyclopediae or the press generally. If, hypothetically, psychiatric professionals are sufficiently alarmed by their observations of our subject to speak out and risk censure by their profession, and those opinions are reported by reliable, published sources, we should be doubly prepared to include this information in our article. We do not have any responsibility to protect published speakers from the effects of their speech. General Ization Talk 17:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it governs the professionals who would be considered competent experts and they violate this principle then WP should not consider their casual statements to be expert statements suitable for an encyclopedia. This just sounds like a smear. It's name-calling. If his doctor tells us he has a certain disability, that will be different. The doctor will specify the disability, document it, and relate it to evidence. In that case, WP can link to the disorder and readers can understand the assertion that's being made. But that's not what's being proposed here. We can't just attach casual language to a person's biography. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "casual" (a term you just introduced) in this context. We are not talking about comments a psychiatrist may have made to their barber. If published in mainstream sources, risking, as others have proposed, possible censure by the profession, I would not regard such statements as "casual", and rather would assume the speakers are highly motivated to be heard as broadly and clearly as possible. General Ization Talk 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Also, many respected sources consider him "mean spirited" and immoral, so we should include that as well. These traits define the man, so they should be in the first sentence... I propose: "Donald John Trump (US Listeni/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is a mean-spirited, narcissistic, amoral, intolerant, insulting, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, cheating, lying American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States." That's a good start. If anyone else can come up with other terms to describe what a monster he is, I would welcome those additions too! Marteau (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLP (and other policies) there's pretty much no way you can include any of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a number of articles were written about Trump and NPD, including articles about why mental health professionals cannot and should not diagnose people they have not examined. Whether or not the issue should have been raised, it was, and therefore there are no MEDRS objections to mentioning them, so long as per weight we explain the limitations. MEDRS merely prevents us from saying as a fact that someone has NPD. I find however that at present the issue is too trivial to mention in the main article. Many successful politicians and business leaders show symptons of personality disorders,[61] so there is no reason to mention it in this article unless it becomes a big issue. TFD (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I myself suffer from Carefree Nonplanfulness! Thanks for the link. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you also need to have other things to be a psychopath like extroversion and lack of empathy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a licensed mental health professional, it is highly unethical to make or suggest a diagnosis like this from watching him on teevee. You'd need a legitimate diagnostic interview to do this. It's no more acceptable than Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo on the Senate floor. We should not engage in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely that we should not "engage in this". That is not the question. The question is whether we should reflect reliable, published sources quoting experts (assuming there are experts) who have already done so, whether or not we as editors perceive their having done so as ethical behavior. This seems to me to fall squarely under WP:NPOV. General Ization Talk 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that those "experts" should know better than to do what they're doing, and we should ignore it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we should not report on published statements by experts when we as editors think they should have known better than to make them? I can see a whole lot of recovered disk space once this principle has been applied to the entire Wiki. General Ization Talk 18:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These experts are not expert on Trump, if they haven't had a one-on-one diagnostic interview with him. Which I doubt. Otherwise they're speculating and arm-chair psycholigizing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Terri Schiavo case article mentions that Bill First diagnosed Terri Schiavo on the Senate floor. Are you going to remove that from that article? TFD (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that? Given the way the Schiavo situation transpired, that was a major event in the timeline. People suggesting Trump has NPD fits nowhere in the timeline of major events. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IOW MEDRS is a red herring and the issue is weight, just as in the Terri Schiavo case. Which is what I said. TFD (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frist's "diagnosis" of Schiavo should be treated as dubious at best (I haven't read the article to see how it's framed). But it was a major event in the situation, and has weight. Armchair psychiatrists talking about Trump's narcissism should have no weight, because they don't have any bearing on anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If professionals speculate without examination, we should give it as much weight and article space as if I did so. I.e., none. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People, dont get bogged down on the NPD angle. The narcissism angle is more promising for Wikipedia. Narcissism is more of a character trait and is not necessarily pathological. It's quite legitimate to talk about Trump's perceived narcissism. This has nothing to do with giving him diagnostic labels.--Penbat (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's politically-motivated name-calling. If we go down that road, much work is needed in other politicians' articles, starting with Hillary Clinton. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! It's totally inappropriate to speculate upon and politically motivated. Perhaps reminding the Hillary partisans about all of the things that could go into her article in this vein is a good approach to this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been widely discussed by reliable sources for a long time, and it's clearly relevant and should be included. The question is not whether to include it, but how we best do it. It is not unethical in any way to analyze the world's most influential people; for example the article Adolf Hitler discusses various views of health professionals that Hitler suffered from e.g. borderline personality disorder and a long list of other conditions, even though these health professionals didn't personally examine him. In the case of a President of the United States, or another hugely important leader of a country, the material is so overwhelming that it is possible for experts to offer professional opinions, and in this case, those opinions have received more than sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin interval: 4:50. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Internet humour terms aside, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that under Wikipedia policies, it is perfectly legitimate to include professional views on the character traits and/or mental health of a world leader, as long as those views are adequately (which means very extensively in such a case) covered by reliable sources. We even have a whole article devoted to the psychopathography of Adolf Hitler and I suspect we will very soon have a similar article devoted to Trump as well, as this topic appears to be a huge one with very extensive discussion in RS. --Tataral (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than humor, it actually has a point. It remains to be seen whether comparison to the Hitler article is apt or relevant to this discussion. If Trump starts WW III as a result of his extreme nationalism and thirst for power, committing genocide against millions of Mexicans and Muslims, we can bring Hitler into it. Until then, that's hyperbole that has no place in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you are very familiar with men made out of straw. As any serious person can see from the above comment, the issue is not a general comparison of Trump and Hitler or a comparison of their policies, but whether Wikipedia can include analysis of personality traits and mental health of very powerful world leaders. The answer is yes, as long as it's covered (adequately) in reliable sources. There are many other articles on world leaders which include this kind of analysis too. The insistence of some editors that the experts cited are required to have examined the world leader personally is a form of IDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making the same argument at Hillary Clinton? I don't see that. Plenty of negative things said about her have been covered (adequately) in reliable sources, and yet have been omitted from the article on the basis of editorial judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other articles on world leaders which include this kind of analysis too. Generally decades or centuries after their death and with a thorough examination of their time in office. Certainly not before they’ve taken office. The insistence of some editors that the experts cited are required to have examined the world leader personally is a form of IDONTLIKEIT. Well, the American Psychiatric Association suggests that this is a form of unethical behavior. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Actions which the APA once held to be unethical are now a legal mandate in many states. Ethics are not static, and evolve over time given history and experience. In any case, as I have already pointed out several times, the APA does not govern our actions here, and if professionals subject to the APA's tenets and guidelines choose to ignore them and speak out on a particular topic, that may itself be a notable event. General Ization Talk 22:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's one viewpoint, and not wrong on its face. Another is that mental health professionals are not created equal, and those who show disregard for established ethical guidelines of their own profession should not be treated as reliable sources. The statements are notable for their lack of credibility. I do not propose that APA or anybody else govern our actions. I feel an RfC coming on. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a certain country requires health care professionals to behave in a certain way, that has no bearing on whether Wikipedia can report on their views. Analysis of personality traits of influential world leaders is quite common (the US government for example has evaluated Putin from a mental health perspective) and there are no policy-based arguments against including it if it is reliably sourced and relevant. --Tataral (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Muboshgu, Objective3000 and Mandruss here: armchair psychological evaluations have no place in a WP:BLP. And I remind editors peddling the Hitler scare that BLP restrictions apply to Talk pages as well. — JFG talk 23:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

A 30-day RfC on that issue just closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the image in the infobox from the current File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg to File:Donald Trump (29273256122) - Cropped.jpg. The latter image provides a better frontal view of Trump's facial features, with his eyes fixed on the camera lens and not elsewhere. This might involve major restructuring of articles due to the change of the unofficial portrait, yet until the official portrait will be released after Trump's inauguration, I believe we will be better off using this image. Von Sprat (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 30-day RfC on that issue just closed. See #Current consensuses and RfCs above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we all just wait five weeks until the federal government releases his official portrait? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our quota is two concurrent RfCs on his image. (Sorry, long day.) Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, Muboshgu, hard-fought consensuses should stand uncontested for awhile so we can get other things done. In this case, "awhile" reasonably means until the official portrait is released, even if that takes four months. With respect, your question, by inviting responses and responses to those responses, effectively re-opens an issue that has been resolved. I submit that my comment was all that was necessary or appropriate, and I wouldn't object if someone else hatted this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title in infobox

The infobox has Trump taking office as President-elect on January 20, but isn't he already the President-elect, and will become President on January 20? If so, shouldn't the infobox be edited to reflect this? Ollie035 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ollie035: This section of the infobox means that he is currently President-Elect and that he is scheduled to take office (i.e. become President) on January 20, not that he will become PE on January 20. — JFG talk 07:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Why did you archive the entry on pronunciation, which doesn't have any answers at all? Since Trump himself clearly doesn't exhibit the cot–caught merger, it should be debated what the IPA should be handled. --2.245.84.167 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump identifies as a conservative, and..."

The lead includes the sentence "Trump identifies as a conservative, and his ideology has been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist"

If we are to include the views of "scholars and commentators", it is a startling omission and even a misrepresentation of the discourse among scholars and commentators that the sentence doesn't mention how numerous scholars and commentators have described his political views with terms such as "far-right", "fascist", "Islamophobic", "anti-immigrant", "xenophobic", and many other terms that are much more widely used among scholars and commentators to describe his views than "protectionist" and "nationalist." In particular, there has been very serious and very extensive discussion over whether he can be described as a fascist; of course not everyone agrees that he is, but the opinion is held by many experts (political scientists, historians) and is debated seriously[62] and extensively in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there's no source for the "conservative" bit so I have removed it. Next step would be to evaluate the sources for those other more detailed descriptors and consider whether to add them to the article and if so, whether they belong in lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source. "When you get down to it, I am a conservative person. I am by nature a somewhat conservative person... I never looked at putting a label on myself, because frankly putting a label on myself, it didn't matter — I wasn't in politics... It was something that absolutely had no bearing on me."[63] Which is from August 2015, when he started running, and Jeb Bush was saying that Trump was not as conservative as Jeb Bush (and Trump was responding that like Reagan who ended up being a "pretty conservative" potus in Trump's words, Trump sees himself as "somewhat conservative" overall). Now, that should suffice to put the removed bit back into mainspace. Of course, there are a bunch of Donald-Trump-sayings about what he is, more broadly.[64] Trump self-identifies as a TON of other things, besides "somewhat conservative" per above, but none of them are a political ideology:

  • "...a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns [during the general election] in the history of our country"[65]
  • "We've actually expanded the party...I am a unifier [of factions within the Republican party]."[66]
  • Part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich.
  • I am a traditionalist [with respect to marriage]. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.
  • I am very critical of illegal immigration and the tremendous problems including crime, which it causes.
  • I am not a fan of John McCain because he has done so little for our Veterans....
  • I am against any path to citizenship for undocumented workers or anyone else who is in this country illegaly. They should--and need to--go home and get in line.
  • I'm very angry. Because our country is being run horribly. ...I'm angry because our country is a mess!
  • On trade, I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
  • I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again!
  • I think I am a nice person. People that know me, like me. Does my family like me? I think so, right. Look at my family. I’m proud of my family.
  • I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.
  • In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate. ... I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally.
  • I’m going to make our country rich again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones.
  • My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three word loyalty pledge. It reads, "I'm with her." I choose to recite a different pledge. My pledge reads, "I’m with you – the American people." I am your voice.
  • I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. It's because it's about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.[67]

But this sentence is about his politics, and in particular, his political faction within the United States political parties. It is possible to be a conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin, and it is possible to be a liberal Republican like Susan Collins. In the demographic breakdown used by public polling, they separate people into dem/repub/indep groups (party self-identification), which mostly aligns with who-you-voted-for-in-2012 self-identification (Romney-voters and Obama-voters), but they also ask if you consider yourself to be VeryConservative/SomewhatConservative/Moderate/SomewhatLiberal/VeryLiberal, which is quite different. Trump is, in terms of his party-id, a former democrat in the previous millenium, who is currently an independent-turned-republican. Trump is, in terms of his ideological-id, "somewhat conservative". He is also simultaneously nativist and populist, which are more fine-grained subcategories within the overall 'somewhat conservative' broad-brush category. But although he is also, as he likes to say, "very rich" that is not a subcategory of his "somewhat conservative" political self-identification, that is a completely separate demographic metric. (I also don't think that Trump's self-identification as a Christian belongs in his political ideology sentence, because unlike say Rick Santorum his religious views are not *central* to his political stances.) That is not to say that the various things Tartaral brought up don't belong, just that they don't belong in this sentence, because they aren't core political ideologies. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016

Donald Trump is the presumed President-elect of the United States, depending on the results of the Electoral College vote on December 19. 2016. Cynthia Cochran 15:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This will only be an issue for like a day. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

electoral college in first paragraph

The first paragraph used to mention the electoral college but that is a very minor point not worth of the 1st paragraph and not very historical nor time honoured fact for a bio. Besides, it is potentially misleading without a major revision because while the electoral college meets on December 19, the results are not opened by a joint session of Congress until January. After January 19, each state mails a letter by registered mail, which takes time. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think right now, the vote of the Electoral College is hugely significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with how it stands at the moment, other than the line "expected to be formally elected" when sources are using phrasing such as "almost certainly" or similar. Marteau (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current wording is fine. It will be interesting to see what the exact count comes out to be. There are often an elector or two who vote differently from how their state voted. When we do get the final count, it might be worth adding that his electoral college victory ranks 46th out of 58 presidential elections according to the NYT.[68] That would be valuable information to have in this article, if only because Trump keeps insisting that he won in a historic landslide. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor style house

The NYTimes article that is being used as a source for the type of home Donald Trump grew up in, does not appear correct. This architecture style is not Tudor or mock Tudor. It seems very much colonial. I would like to remove the description of the house altogether, as it isn't accurate and uses a wiki link that is no where near close to what that house looks like. The edit would still mention the street and neighborhood. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct or not, it doesn't seem very relevant whether the house was mock Tudor, colonial, ranch, or Greek Revival. It might be significant if the style were American Shanty-Town Hovel. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better source for the house: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/refinery29.com/donald-trump-grew-up-in-t_b_11203144.html The photo in the NYTimes was not accurate. And Mandruss, you do not own this article. The idea is to work together to make the article better, not deride someone's comments or dog their edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: After puzzling over this for almost 2 hours, I can only guess that you misread me. Especially given my last sentence, I thought it was clear enough that I propose removal of the mention of the house's style. That's been there for some time and, unless you added it, that suggestion is not about your edits or comments. I suppose I could have been explicit to avoid being misinterpreted. If I "dogged your edit" by adding a wikilink, I and others have been doing a hell of a lot of edit-dogging here and everywhere at Wikipedia.
If your criticism is of a more general nature, I'm more than willing to respond to your concerns on my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) SW3, the source you added, Huffpost based on a Realtor's description, says "Tudor". The attached photo does look like some kind of imitation Tudor. Wikipedia regards "mock Tudor" and "Tudor revival" as the same thing, since one redirects to the other. In any case there is nothing colonial about it. Thanks for providing a better reference to support "mock Tudor"/"Tudor revival". --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I found a source for the actual house, not the image of somebody's else's house that the NYTimes article shows. That's not Trump's house from his childhood. The HuffPost has the correct house and it is indeed the house Trump grew up in, and in fact, his mother continued to live there up until her death. The New York Times correctly called it a mock Tudor but failed to show an accurate photo of the house. The Wikilink for mock Tudor did not look anything like the colonial being showed in the NYTimes article and that is what prompted me to find the correct image. I hope this over explanation is helpful for you. Somewhere down the road, and hopefully soon, this article needs to brought up to at least Good Article standards. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And looking back at the old NYT reference it clearly does show a colonial house. Either the NYT photographed the wrong house, or the Realtor is lying. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the botched cite and kept both houses; the family may have moved, as the smaller house is described as his "birthplace" whereas the other article mentions anecdotes from his childhood linked to the larger house. — JFG talk 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: How was the citation botched? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: You had mistakenly eaten up some of the article text into the <ref></ref>. No worries, that was an easy fix, and I added metadata to the citation while I was at it. — JFG talk 01:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for fixing that. I didn't notice it when I previewed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Tudor house was built by Fred Trump in 1940, according to the Realtor's description. Trump was born in 1946. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it makes sense that he was born in this house built just 6 years before his birthdate, doesn't it? And possibly the family moved to the upscale house a few years later, which makes both sources correct, although conflating them would be WP:SYNTH. — JFG talk 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on businesses owned?

Is there an article/list anywhere on Wikipedia that summarizes/lists Trump's business holdings? I was looking for one. This article gives a lot of detail of his business career, but those aren't necessarily current holdings. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See hidden content at "The Trump Organization" in the box below the infobox. If you expand the content, you will see lists of links to other articles. I'm not aware of a separate article that summarizes all of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, be aware that there is not a simple answer to this. The Trump Organization has many business endeavors that are not "holdings", i.e., not owned by the Trump Organization. Many are partnerships of one kind or another; there are many others, including high-profile Trump-branded properties, in which the TO has no ownership interest and merely licenses the use of the name. I doubt if even the officials of the TO themselves could give you a straightforward answer to this question. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Trump's FEC disclosure form lists hundreds of businesses and subsidiaries. Also see List of assets owned by The Trump Organization, which was created recently but was nominated for deletion because most contents is duplicated from the main Trump Organization and List of things named after Donald Trump articles. And indeed you have the sidebar Template:Donald Trump series and the navbox Template:Trump businesses, which is to my knowledge the most complete. (Full disclosure: I contributed a lot to structuring this navbox.) — JFG talk 00:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was described as a conservative in 1988

At the 1988 Republican convention, CNN described Trump as a conservative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI

45.58.89.66 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=755607410"