Talk:Donald Trump

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

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

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Survey about mentions of Russia
• #Options about popular vote yet again

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

Proposed correction to heading levels

I would like to increase the heading level of three sections that seem to be buried by "TOC limit|3". Business bankruptcies, Ties to Russia, and Personal taxes are the only fourth level headings in the entire biography (until we reach his political efforts where I agree that fourth level and below might be useful). Because editing this article is so contentious I will wait until at least tomorrow to see if there are any objections. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's what it would look like with a longer TOC. Looks unwieldy to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The alternative is to get rid of the TOC limit, which is a good idea. It isn't the TOC that's unwieldy, it is Wikipedia editors who have pack-ratted every detail of this man's life into a few dozen articles. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that happens with presidential nominees and presidents. There are tons of Hillary articles, McCain articles, etc. I've been trying lately to overhaul this article, but there's a long way to go, and maybe when the overhaul is done the structure will look better to you. I've started at the top and am working my way down. If a fourth-level subheader is at the top of a very short subsubsubsection, maybe the subheader ought to be removed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We should place sections and subsections as logically as possible. The current TOC limit at level 3 is appropriate given the length of the article and the number of sections; this shouldn't be changed because we want to emphasize a particular "buried" subsection. if a level-4 subsection deserves a more prominent placement as a level-3 section, this case can be made independently of where the TOC limit stands. Note that on the Wikipedia mobile apps, the TOC limit does not apply: every TOC item is reachable from the article menu. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I support SusanLesch' proposal to eliminate the TOC limit. I don't find it unwieldy at all. Also, "Ties to Russia" should not be a subsection of "Hotels beyond New York".- MrX 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  I changed that last header to "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with MrX about the Ties to Russia should not be a subsection. The problem with the TOC's is that there is too much in this article that is not relevant here and should be moved to the subarticles. Too much is being "rat-packed' into the article. A lot of it is verbose additions that add nothing but length to the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to removing the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, my phone does not display every item in a TOC. Can you please provide a source for that idea? On Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where I removed the TOC limit, my phone only displays level two headings (the title being level one). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Are you using a phone browser such as Safari or Chrome, or the Wikipedia app? I was talking about the latter. — JFG ^talk 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: you're right I didn't have the app yet. Now using the app (that 10 million people downloaded) I don't get any TOC at all. That's in both this article with a TOC limit and in the other one without a limit. So can you please point me to some documentation to support your view that TOCs must be limited to serve mobile users? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Not quite: I was saying that the TOC level setting is irrelevant for the mobile app. You can display the TOC by tapping the "Contents" button (bottom-left of the screen when reading an article) and it always displays the full TOC. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Oh, sorry for speeding through your reply, I assumed you brought up mobile access because of its relation to a TOC limit. Actually, though, I see no difference between the app's TOC in this article and in the other article (one has a TOC limit and one doesn't). For example, in this one, under presidency->Transition there is no White House appointments etc. (as expected because the TOC limit is 3). In Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where there is no TOC limit, I would expect to see sections 5.4.1, 7.7.1, and 7.7.2 represented in the app's TOC but I don't. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: sorry if I am dense but it would help if you finished what was started here. In the Wikipedia app I do not see evidence that the TOC limit is irrelevant. Neither article displays the full TOC (Wikipedia for Android 2.5.195-r-2017-04-21). In this article there is a cut off and a TOC limit, and in the Russian interference article there is a cut off but no stated TOC limit. I guess that a limit is hard coded into the app? Where is the documentation? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: I double-checked: it turns out that the Wikipedia app on iOS shows all TOC levels (ignoring any limit), whereas the Android app shows only level 3, probably hardcoded. No idea if or where these UX choices are documented. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Apple is worth the money, if you get more with iOS. You did a great job on the article and have moved all the sections that were of concern to me to higher levels so they show up. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Susan, how about if I remove the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York"? Then the only fourth-level subheader will be in the presidency section, and you or I could then trim that section while getting rid of the fourth-level subheaders there too. Sounds good? Then we remove the TOC limit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant. Three fourth level headers are bothering me. Because there is no way to find this information: Business bankruptcies, Ties to Russia, and Personal taxes. (Just by the way, removing the TOC limit was not my idea.) All it would take is removing an equal sign on each side of three lines and we'd be done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I already took care of two of those three, in a different way. Okay? Regarding the last one, I would prefer to do the same sort of thing, i.e. remove the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've promoted the 'Ties to Russia' section to level 3. A section that discusses a subject notable enough for its own article should not be at level 4. I've combined the New York real estate sections into one section. (No more "Further buildings"). The loose change can go in the section 'Other real estate activities'.- MrX 21:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, I like this version of the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and SusanLesch: I oppose this edit [1]. It reverts the edit MrX made which has support here. There does not appear to be enough discussion here, or in the other thread, to turn this into Russian interference in the election. These seem to be two separate issues. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See the pertinent talk page section below, where I and other editors are against having "Russia ties" as a standalone section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging "Ties to Russia" with "Other real estate activities" and rename merged section

The section now titled "Other real estate activities" is very short and mainly deals with international stuff, so I think it should be merged with the "Ties to Russia" section (maybe call the merged section "Expansion worldwide"). It's true that there's a separate Wikipedia article about his business in Russia, but there are many Trump-related wikilinks already in this BLP without corresponding headers or subheaders. Note that there is already a subsection further down titled "Foreign interference in election" which is appropriate and is the main place for discussing Russia investigations and the like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "International expansion" sounds better, and the Russian bit can be merged there, as it talks only of his (failed) real estate projects in that country. His alleged collusion with Russia during the election campaign is covered elsewhere in the article. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, ties to Russia explains a long history of Trump's work in Russia. That is of interest to people who might inquire about collusion. As I recall, that section ended with a statement that says Trump has no business in Russia as of 2017. Kindly leave the word Russia in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think "Russia" ought to explicitly be in the table of contents, let's change "Foreign interference in election" to "Russian interference in election". Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am out of sync. Yes, I like your idea -- put Russian interference in election in if that is possible. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. Russia remains in the TOC, but not twice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What? Where's the consensus? You're ignoring the discussion above. Ties to Russia is not the same as Russian interference in the election. [2]. Ties to Russia should be put back as MrX had it. That has support. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted myself, since you object. No one ever said or implied that ties to Russia is the same as Russian interference in the election, but I suppose that I must respect your objections anyway. After all, three editors in this section seem to agree, and you disagree, so we'll do it your way for now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, 'Ties to Russia' (or 'Activities in Russia') have an entire article. It's very noteworthy. Why are you trying to make the section as hard to find as possible?- MrX 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Russia matter that is most noteworthy is purported Russian interference in the election, and of these two sections that is the section that most appropriately has "Russia" in the heading. Are you trying to make that section hard to find? Please try some more WP:AGF. As I said above, the section now titled "Other real estate activities" is very short and mainly deals with international stuff, so I think it should be merged with the "Ties to Russia" section (maybe call the merged section "Expansion worldwide"). It's true that there's a separate Wikipedia article about his business in Russia, but there are many Trump-related wikilinks already in this BLP without corresponding headers or subheaders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously they should both have Russia in the heading. In fact, why do we have "Foreign interference in election" and not "Russian interference in election"? That's just bizarre!- MrX 23:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that some editors would like to have Russia in all the headers. But the fact is that the Russia business ties are notable only because of the alleged interference in the election, and the Russia business ties were not any more notable than the Uruguay business ties until the election came along. Ths article attempts to be chronological, and chronologically the business ties to Russia were not notable until we get further along in the chronology than the real estate career. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The reason we have "Foreign interference" instead of "Russian interference" is because of this thread which discussed Ukrainian interference against Trump, e.g. by leaking data about payments to Paul Manafort. — JFG ^talk 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The Ukraine role far less noteworthy that the Russian interference. The section should not be constructed in such a was as to lead readers to assume they are of similar magnitude or importance.- MrX 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I'm not saying they have equal weight. I was just answering your question wondering where this title came from. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we need more editors commenting and editing here to stop this cabal editing that blocks all new ideas. I see no reason why Russia can't be mentioned twice in the TOC for two different topics. He has had business in Russia so let's put that in there with a proper heading, and there is apparently evidence to show Russian interference in the election, so lets put that in there, too. What's the issue with that? We aren't allowed to trim away the bulky 'side ventures' but mentioning Russia twice is twice too often? That makes no sense.SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's once too often, and tomorrow I intend to partially revert MrX's restructuring project, so that "Ties to Russia" remains a fourth-level subheader as it has been for months, until we get consensus on what to do. I don't want any fourth level subeaders in this article, but the third-level ones ought to be reasonable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to be so obstinate and threaten more aggressive editing. How about you convince us that your way is better? Why do think Trump's business dealings in Russia are so unimportant that you would demote it to lesser status than "Professional wrestling appearances"?- MrX 00:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: please take note of discussion. I agree with @MrX:, Anything. You're response here is inappropriate. You don't own this article and other editors are allowed to insert material into this article. Saying we cannot mention Russia twice makes no sense. There are two separate issues involving Russia. They should both be mentioned. It's all over RS. You can't blend the two and hide them under a header that doesn't reference them. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very funny User:MrX. You change longstanding content, and you object to me restoring a small part until we reach consensus, and yet I'm being aggressive and obstinate? Please. Just because something doesn't have a dedicated header doesn't mean it's unimportant. Trump built "Trump Tower", and he ran "The Trump Organization", both of which are very significant aspects of his life, and yet neither of those terms appear in headers or subheaders. I support having "Russia" in one of our subheaders, but think two is overkill, especially since the primary notability of Russia is in the context of the election. I've not suggested to remove any content, just to have Russia in one header instead of two. Incidentally, I have overhauled some stuff in the "Side ventures" section, but have not overhauled the wrestling part, and it may well be that that section can be shrunk and/or combined with another section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate issues with Russia Yes, we can mention both issues with headers. You should not revert MrX's edit. Let it stand. Let's get other editors here to comment. It' cannot be just you making decisions here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything, please see the note I have left on your talk page. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, User:Ad Orientem, and I responded to it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I've put up a survey to help settle this matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anythingyouwant, I think you are exhibiting some WP:OWN behavior here. You have made far more edits to long standing content recently that I have ever, and you rarely fail to ignore WP:BRD and even the 1RR restrictions to make sure that your edits persist. How about letting others have a turn at editing this article for a change?- MrX 01:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are in the minority regarding a content dispute, or have not put together a consensus, then I don't intend to just roll over and be intimidated. Get consensus and go from there, without any obstruction from me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If I were in the minority, that would be fine, but you're the only editor who has objected to my minor content reorganization and who has threatened to revert my edit as soon as the 1RR clock resets.- MrX 01:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)Yes, and there's the difference. It's just his opinion holding this up. The survey will need time to sort this. In the meantime, he should not be allowed to revert anything. @SusanLesch: please comment on the survey. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So Susan and JFG never supported a subsection titled "Worldwide expansion", and Susan never endorsed changing "Foreign Interference in the election" to "Russian interference in the election"? I just imagined all that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where SusanLesch specifically supported that. It seems to me it was you who suggested a title, then made the edit, then came back and said it was done and that Russia was mentioned, "but not twice." I'm not seeing where she said anything of the kind, unless I'm missing it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

*Yes, "International expansion" sounds better, and the Russian bit can be merged there, as it talks only of his (failed) real estate projects in that country. His alleged collusion with Russia during the election campaign is covered elsewhere in the article. — JFG

• No, ties to Russia explains a long history of Trump's work in Russia. That is of interest to people who might inquire about collusion. As I recall, that section ended with a statement that says Trump has no business in Russia as of 2017. Kindly leave the word Russia in the TOC. -SusanLesch

  If you think "Russia" ought to explicitly be in the table of contents, let's change "Foreign interference in election" to "Russian interference in election". Anythingyouwant

  Sorry I am out of sync. Yes, I like your idea -- put Russian interference in election in if that is possible. -SusanLesch

  Okay, done. Russia remains in the TOC, but not twice. Anythingyouwant

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote during my absence, @Anythingyouwant: You represented my view fairly. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey about mentions of Russia

Can we mention Russia twice in the TOC? One subject is Trump's Ties to Russia, while the other subject is Russian interference in the election. Please indicate Support or Oppose. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. They are two separate issues that are notable in the RS and should have two sections with TOC headers. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, we absolutely should. This should not even be contentious. It's not even about the TOC, as much as it is about good article structure and clear headings that inform readers.MrX 01:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks for starting the survey, and I hope you don't mind that I've clarified your survey question. Having "Russia" twice in the Table of Contents is overkill, but having it once is fine. Trump's business ties with Russia were not notable until the alleged interference by Russia in the U.S. election. Since this BLP is supposed to be roughly chronological, the election subsection should have "Russia" in a header, while the stuff about business ties ought to go in a subsection "Worldwide expansion" that discusses his business ties with many different countries. That said, I fully support keeping all the content about his Russia business ties, just not as a subsection separate from his dealings with lots of other countries. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  P.S. Please see this utterly astounding edit if you would like more information about this survey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The noteworthy thing about Russia is their purported interference in the election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Trump's (failed) business deals in Russia are no more important than his (failed) business deals in Azerbaijan and Israel or his (successful) business deals in Canada and Panama. They have only been heavily scrutinized because of the election story. Therefore everything about Russia should be in a single section. — JFG ^talk 01:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. For now, both topics are important to evaluate the situation. I would not oppose if at some future date the Ties topic was folded into a real estate paragraph. But not for a year or more. A year is an arbitrary guess and does not mean in the forseeable future, therefore I support both in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also, "Ties to Russia" should be immediately renamed "Ties to Russians" or "Ties to Russian investors" per WP:BLPSOURCES. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Given the contents, I would suggest "Russian projects and investors". — JFG ^talk 08:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to Russia" is what the RS call it. Same with "Russian interference in the election." SW3 5DL (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What RS call "Ties to Russia" is a combination of everything linking Trump with Russia, including his remarks about Putin, the Russian influence propaganda, the DNC / Wikileaks hacks, the alleged collusion of Trump's campaign people or acquaintances with Russian officials, the Steele dossier, etc. However this section only talks about Trump's aborted projects in Russia and his Russian real estate clients, therefore it should be titled appropriately. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: There's no consensus for the change you made. Ties to Russia should remain. That is what RS calls it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I answered your point about "what RS call it" in my rationale above. The target article is also not called "Donald Trump ties to Russia" but "Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia". A move request to "Donald Trump affiliations with Russia" was unanimously opposed in February. Looks to me like what has no consensus is the conflating of Trump's Russian business dealings and the political angle of this affair. Each story has an appropriate section in the biography: "Russian projects and investors" under the real estate career section and "Foreign interference in the election" under the 2016 campaign section. — JFG ^talk 14:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: It is important to note that there is no consensus on what to do about this section. Your edit is premature. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe the edit that named this section "Ties to Russia"[3] was premature itself. In any case, the exact title is not what your survey asks, and I'm willing to have another debate about this, after the question is settled whether we should have two sections about Russia in the bio (my personal preference is still a single section but I'm not opposed to having two sections, as long as their subject matters are well defined, which is currently the case). — JFG ^talk 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes it should be two sections. One on his business and the other on the Russian interference that says, that. The survey does have the titles being proposed but as @MrX: noted in his comments, it's not well stated but close enough. It's just us, not an official RfC which would be nice to avoid. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment. I find it absolutely incredible that anyone would try to tweak the headings of a Wikipedia article in order to influence what appears in its table of contents. I find it equally incredible there is a thread on a talk page asking editors to support or oppose tweaking headings to influence the TOC. In all my years of editing Wikipedia, I have never encountered anything like this before. This startling level of POV-pushing nonsense is disheartening to the extreme. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It is POV to suppress it. It is due weight given the coverage in RS and the importance of the issues raised. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Never say never: remember this thread where some editors wanted to tweak the TOC in order to make the sexual misconduct allegations easier to find? — JFG ^talk 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I was not a contributor to this article until long after that (first edit). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is somewhat awkwardly worded, but I don't believe anyone is actually trying to influence the TOC per se. If you read the discussions that led up to it, and the subsequent discussions, it is about whether certain subtopics should be reduced to a subsection of subsection, or whether they should be same level as other related subtopics. It's also about accurately phrasing the headings so that they reflect the contents of the respective subsections. It's also about making sure we have at least one dedicated section in this article when there is an entire article devoted to the subject.- MrX 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well said. That is difficult to squeeze into one sentence, but that is exactly the issue. These subsections get hidden and do not appear in the TOC and should be brought up a peg. The other issue is the contention by Anythingyouwant that Russia must not be mentioned int he TOC twice. These are two separate issues involving Russia, both prominent issues, so an arbitrary command that we cannot have Russia mentioned twice seems POV pushing. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No. This is wrong on many levels. The TOC should never be used to push a POV one way or another, and by talking about "hidden subsections" that is exactly the case. The TOC is to make the page easier to navigate, not to give certain things prominence. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's really a question of due weight, and that should be the guide. These are still prominent issues and are as relevant, even more so, than other items in subsections that appear in the TOC. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's wrong to bury important topics so deep that no one can find them. Frankly, every section of the article should appear in the TOC. That's the only NPOV approach for such a controversial article. There have been some sneaky attempts to distance the subject of this article from Russia. That misrepresents the body of source material, a very large amount of which is about the Russia's (not Ukrainian) attempts to tip the scales so that Trump would win, as well as his substantial business activities in Russia.- MrX 15:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This version doesn't suppress anything. Russia appears in an appropriate header, and all the Russia-related sections appear in the TOC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

These are two separate topics and should be in two separate sections. Both have enough notability to have their own subsections. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The version I just mentioned has the attempted business connections with Russia and other countries in one subsection, and it has the attempted election interference by Russia and other countries in another later subsection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's only "Worldwide Expansion" which has both topics blended into one subsection the links offered in this edit here and this one here. I looked at both links and I do not see two sections unless my new glasses are failing me. That's not the same as each subject, the Russian interference and the Ties to Russia with the real estate investments, having their own subsection. On a topic like this that keeps coming up again and again, it needs to be opened to many more editors participating and that was not done before this edit was made. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The version I just referred to has a section titled "Russian and other interference in election". Are you now objecting to that? It also has a separate section titled "Worldwide expansion" that fully covers Trump's efforts in Russia and other countries. Regarding your comment about more editors, why make such a comment? Am I objecting to more editors? I completely reverted the version that you just linked, the minute you objected to it. Do I have to now keep apologizing for not removing it earlier? Why can't we simply discuss its merits? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the links you are referencing in your comments above, here and this one here. I am saying that there should be two subsections, one entitled 'Ties to Russia' and the other 'Russian interference in the election.' Those are the titles I believe should be in the article as they reflect wide notability in reliable sources and meet due weight. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this further with you until you stop changing your comments after I've already responded to them. Per WP:TPG, either remove the changes, or mark them as changed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR question

(Background: This discussion started on my talk page and was moved here at my request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

With the 1RR on DT, does that mean that if you revise content, and that gets reverted, and you then come back and revise the same content again less than 24 hours later, is that a 1RR violation? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think merely revising content is necessarily a revert if it hasn't been the subject of any recent discussion or editing. I can get some links on that if you would like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually here looking for Ad Orientem's opinion. Revision is often the same as a revert. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR means that you don't reinsert material or edits that have been challenged by reversion. If the edit in question is substantially the same as one that was reverted then you are violating 1RR. I would also point out that people should be seeking talk page consensus before making major changes to the article. Discretionary Sanctions is not limited to 1RR. The bottom line is that we need to show respect for other editors and the broader community when editing articles about controversial figures. If someone is habitually not doing that then they can be sanctioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

{e/c] I'm not all that familiar with the sanctioning on ArbCom pages. but these edits seem to me to be violating 1RR imposed on DT, and there are more like them.

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit at 02:38 was not a revert that anyone should be blocked for, if indeed it was technically a revert, because that material had not recently been the subject of any discussion or editing, so there was not remotely anything like a revert-war going on (also note that the edit of 02:38 basically added info rather than removing any info). Moreover, FYI, there was a lot of discussion here about what constitutes a revert, and the purported difference between a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". As far as editing the Trump article recently, I've been bold and substantially upgraded the article recently. I would like to keep going to make it ready to be a "good article". If there is consensus that I have not been doing this properly, then I'll go away from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a conversation that needs to be held on the article talk page. IMO this discussion should be moved there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Will you be commenting on the article talk page? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly if I have time. I'm in the middle of some stuff right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

.Has he violated the 1RR? It appears to me he has, and he has done this many times before. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If the edit at 02:38 was a revert subject to 1RR then so was this. Right SW3? Anyway, please move this discussion per request above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This section was originally posted on Ad Orientem's talk page. Ad Orientem wanted it moved here.

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, do you think this edit of mine might have been a revert? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you violated 1RR here:

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I know, you already said all of that above. It's not what I'm asking you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since my opinion has been requested, I think that calling the linked edits a 1RR violation is a stretch. I am INVOLVED by virtue of having recently edited this article, and thus am merely offering my opinion as an experienced editor. That said this looks like well intentioned, albeit perhaps overly assertive editing. If I were acting as an admin I would certainly not issue a block on the basis of what I've seen here. But I do think that everybody needs to remember that the subject of this article is controversial. There have been talk page arguments over the most trivial edits. Everybody needs to remember that there are a lot of cooks in this kitchen and editing should be approached with that in mind. Yes, there is WP:BOLD, but there is also WP:CONSENSUS. The latter always trumps (pun intended) the former. I am not seeing any malicious editing here. But an argument could be made that there has been insufficient consideration given to the opinions of other editors. We should all try to remember that we are on the same team here and edit accordingly. So let's try to assume good faith, and show a reasonable level of respect for the other members of the team and their view of what should go into the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. And I agree that there is insufficient consideration given to the opinions of others, especially when edits are constantly reverted and/or challenged. And I still think it's a violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly free to disagree with me. I'm just one person, but you asked for my opinion and I've given it. 1RR does not mean an editor has to ask permission before making any edits. And yes, we all need to show some consideration for the other editors working on the article. And that works two ways. Routinely reverting someone's edits can be seen as less than constructive unless there are good reasons. But if you want to pursue this ANEW is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that 1RR means we have to ask permission before making any edits. About routinely reverting someone's edits, I can show you diffs of almost every edit I've made has been reverted by Anythingyouwant or changed, or moved. He dogs my edits. I worked on several sections when we were reducing the size of the article, and he came back and changed every edit I made. But when anybody reverts or changes his edits, he has a fit on the talk page. His comments get hostile, very aggressive. When I switched around the ancestry and family sections, I removed 'ancestry' since it seem silly to separate it from his family. Anythingyouwant had a meltdown on the talk page about it. Very aggressive, hostile comments. JFG rolled back all of my edits for that night without any regard to separating out what they were objecting to. Just all of them. They were later restored, but this is the kind of thing that shows lack of regard for other editors, and WP:OWN, which needs to be addressed. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The best I can do is strongly encourage everybody to step back, take a deep breath and try to conduct ourselves in a collegial manner. It doesn't help when we don't assume good faith and or fail to show respect for everybody else who is working on this article. And that applies to all of us. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But we need an admin to start moderating this talk page and article so this ownership issue and the constant disruption can be resolved. Nobody else is doing the things to this page that he does. Nobody else is subverting a gathering consensus with go no where RfC's. Right now he's threatening to partially revert MrX's edit. Who is he to decide that? The last I checked he's just one ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are being very unfair, SW3. Both JFG and Susan expressed support above for combining "Ties to Russia" with "Other real estate activities", and prior to MrX's edits the former material was a subsection under the latter. I welcome Ad Orientem's opinion about this if he feels like giving it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you stop taking the 'initiative' to instantly change things when you've got only two people agreeing with you? Why do things have to be decided on the spot? Let the issues sit for a bit. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia unless it's a BLP violation that demands immediate attention. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are being extremely unfair. I am seeking to return to the status quo of not having "Russia" appear in the table of contents until we get consensus about it. You say "Right now he's threatening to partially revert MrX's edit." Well, was MrX seeking to maintain the status quo or change it? You're making it seem like I'm the one who is trying to charge ahead with changes based on support from two other editors. Not so, not so at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not unfair, it's dead on accurate. Why do you believe you must be the one to restore anything? So what if one of the holes isn't filled in with a peg? It will get sorted. Like I said, there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy it SW3. Saying that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia is a proper argument for maintaining the status quo until a consensus is worked out, not for changing the article in a way that is hotly contested. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Right now you're the only one 'hotly contesting' it. You hotly contest everything that isn't your idea. Give it a rest. MrX is right. He's not the only one who wants to see this. These subjects belong on this article. There is more than sufficient RS to support good edits. WP:LISTEN. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Let your survey proceed and then we'll see whether there is consensus for your proposal. And don't blame me if you fail to get consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am signing off shortly as I need to get up early but the talk page survey is the right way to proceed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement regarding behavior

• I've been away for 24 hours and haven't been following the latest disagreements, and in any case I have no interest in parsing and passing judgment on the constant bickering between SW3 and Anything. Here is what I see: Anything aggressively editing without waiting for consensus, and SW3 inflating what ought to be minor content disagreements into what they apparently hope will be the ultimate case to get the other person sanctioned. The two of you have made this article, and this page, into a battleground - too complicated to follow, too unpleasant for anyone to try to weigh in the on the actual content. My hunch is that if either of you bring this bickering before the community at large (i.e. ANI), you could both wind up being sanctioned. Please try to calm down with your wars and accusations, and just work together, patiently and collegially, like all the rest of us seem to manage to do. When you have a disagreement, come to the talk page and post a clear explanation of what is being discussed, without accusations or demands, so that the community as a whole can discuss the content. Discussing content is what this page is for.
  NOTE: In this comment I am speaking as an ordinary, involved editor at this page. I am not in any way speaking as an admin or threatening anyone. I'm just trying to let you know how this ongoing, months-long series of accusations and counter-accusations looks to the community at large. Please do not reply by trying to prove that the OTHER person is at fault. Please just calm down and quit trying to make every editing disagreement between the two of you into World War III. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have no problem with that. Thank you both. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• SW3 has brought the matter to ANI where it is currently pending. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• ☝ What MelanieN said. ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have voluntarily pledged to stop editing this BLP, though I may comment here at the talk page from time to time.[4] Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversies & Personal life suggestions

• Controversies section

This should be a section, not a subsection hidden under the 2016 Presidential campaign because the issue of his tax returns is on-going and the sexual allegations were before he became a candidate. They were simply raised during the campaign, but did not occur during the campaign. Most BLP's with controversy sections have them towards the end of the article in their own section. I don't think this is a BLP question since this subsection is reliably sourced.

• Personal Life section

The Personal Life section would be better at the start of the article, like Barack Obama's article. This is basic information most readers would want to know and is due weight, especially as Trump has had multiple marriages which raise common questions for readers. In the meantime, the 'ancestry' section has been given a position and prominence that seems undue weight. It is interesting history, but being separated from Personal Life gives the first impression that this is all the article has to say about his family.

I think we should make Controversies it's own section, with the taxes and sexual allegations as subsections, and Personal Life should be moved back to top of the article and the ancestry section could be a subsection that comes last, not first in that section per due weight and reader interest.

SW3 5DL (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Controversies section is now at the bottom as its own section. It's no longer buried. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The personal info is now at the top in a "Family and personal life" section, more or less chronologically. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great job. Looks reads much better now. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is better. I have further merged the single-paragraph "Early life" section with "Education" into "Early life and education" which is the usual section name in biographies. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Should we really have a Controversies section here? As far as I know, they are strongly discouraged in BLPs, especially in those of politicians. Notice Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush don't have them, for instance. I would suggest incorporating these controversies into other sections. (And also, there are probably too many controversies surrounding Donald Trump for one section.) κατάσταση 02:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

we should not have controversy sections. Controversies should be incorporated into relevant sections. For example, the tax returns came up as an issue during the primaries and has been raised repeatedly since. It was never an issue before he ran for office. Notice that Adolph Hitler has no controversy section, although he was more controversial than Trump, even in his first 100 days. TFD (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The taxes are an ongoing issue. He'll be expected to release his returns in 2018, like other presidents have done. If we eliminate the controversies section, then I think it would be best to put the taxes under his wealth or some other section that makes sense rather than leave them in the campaign section. They seem buried there. The sexual allegations could go back to the campaign or the media section. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had initially grouped all controversies into their own section but really they were all campaign issues, so I moved them there, then somebody moved them back into a separate section. Here's my opinion on each issue:

• Foreign interference in election: campaign issue which has somehow morphed into its own monster issue of American or even worldwide politics, keep it short here, leave the gory details to the Russian interference page.
• Sexual misconduct allegations: Trump was always a womanizer and his sex life had been tabloid fodder for decades, but nobody cared before the campaign, and nobody cares now; the Access Hollywood scandal was a typical October surprise, I really don't see a point emphasizing this aspect of his bio outside of the campaign context, where it did have an influence.
• Non-release of tax returns: either campaign issue or subsection of wealth section, however I feel it had more impact on the campaign side (again, nobody cared about his taxes before he ran for president).

Further opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely abhor "controversies" sections. Controversial issues should be woven into an article just like any other stuff. Besides, we already have a "controversies" section: a first-level heading titled "Donald Trump" at the top of the page. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The taxes are ongoing and should have their own section. The sexual allegations should not be placed where it appears they are being kept out of sight. That's the problem right now. Same with the family section being put down at the bottom of the article. I didn't see a reason for that at all unless someone is squeamish that he's been married three times. The article needs to conform to other BLP's of presidents. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have cancelled the separate Controversies section by moving the tax returns section adjacent to the wealth section (and consolidated a bunch of duplicate text), and the sexual misconduct section back into the campaign section. They are both level 3, which takes care of Susan's initial concern. — JFG ^talk 15:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI You reverted the edit and have now made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Per WP:BLP#BALANCE, a non-neutral BLP section heading must be removed immediately. More generally, "segregation of text into different regions, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial' and therefore more likely to be false". (WP:STRUCTURE.) So, any BLP section headed "Controversy" may be immediately reverted (and perhaps moved to Talk for discussion).

No "Controversy" section should ever be added to a BLP without first getting consensus. And I would have to oppose, per cited policies. I see no consensus to add it. Thanks for spotting the edit and reverting. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: It looks like that's moot now. I don't see anyone arguing to keep it and JFG has already reverted the edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

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.

---

Change "prior to" in the first paragraph to "before. "Prior to" is just stupid. NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus for the lead paragraph has already been established (item 17 of #Current consensus), and you'll to prompt more discussion before that changes. Also this is an encyclopedia article, and the standard of English reflects that. I don't see a huge problem here. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a controversial edit (edit requests are exactly for uncontroversial edits, so...). This is a simple improvement of wording, so I believe it should be done. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

'Prior to' or 'before'

According to Chicago ("Good Usage Vs. Common Usage"), "prior to entering" is common usage; "before entering" or "until entering" is good usage. ("Prior to. Make it before or until.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I support this change, per 69.165.196.103 and Dervorguilla. I don't agree with the original poster's premise that "prior to" is "stupid" though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I also support this change. If enough people agree, I would support changing it in consensus #17 and removing the disclaimer from the invisible comment in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: We're changing it to "Before entering politics. . .?" SW3 5DL (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I support it. It has already been changed in the article. What I am suggesting is that we let this discussion run for a few days, and if there is consensus (or at least no objection) we document it as the new consensus: by changing it in consensus #17, and by removing the invisible comment "(But 'before' may be reverted to 'prior to'.) " from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Reads better. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I can't find the section you quote in the Chicago Manual of Style. Can you cite an edition and page number? — JFG ^talk 20:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: 6th ed., ch. 5 ("Grammar and Usage"), under "Glossary of Problematic Words and Phrases," para. 5.220, "Good usage versus common usage", p. 294. See also Garner's American Usage, 3rd ed.: "The adjectives prior and previous for earlier are each within the stylist's license; prior to and previous to in place of before are not." --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — JFG ^talk 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Personally, I feel that the "Foreign Policy" section needs to be corrected. While it mentions Trump's positions on certain issues, it also has references to his appointees- whose statements are theirs only.

Trump has considered recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia in the past;[603][604] however, in the aftermath of Michael T. Flynn's resignation as National Security Adviser, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that Trump expects Russia to "return" Crimea to Ukraine,[605] emphatically stating that "Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine."[606] He added that Trump's appointed ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, "strongly denounced the Russian occupation" of Crimea.[606] Trump has pledged to hold a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin.[607] He added that Russia could help the U.S. in fighting ISIS militants.[608] On April 7, 2017, Trump ordered the Shayrat missile strike in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack in Syria.[609]

I take issue with the addition of Sean Spicer's position on Nikki Haley's position - it's too ambiguous.

Thanks.

Thenigma (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer is the White House press secretary. For good or for ill, his word is the word of the President of the United Staes when he is "on the clock" so to speak. TheValeyard (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is too much detail and it obscures the facts that the article should convey. Trump spoke during the campaign about improving U.S.-Russia relations, possibly recognizing their annexation of Crimea, but since the election has continued the policies of the Obama administration. His opponents probably read too much into his initial remarks, which were similar to what Clinton herself had said 8 years earlier. TFD (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. This is a biography. We can make general, broad-stroke statements here about his foreign policy; detail belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Our current section goes into way too much detail about Crimea. I personally would delete it all except for a general statement about his desire to improve relations with Russia and to meet with Putin. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes to trimming this issue out of the BLP. And we also have separated articles now for Trump's foreign policy positions as a candidate and the foreign policy of the Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 09:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would hesitate to trust anything Haley says on the president's behalf. Before the election she was known for openly hating on him. She would not pass muster as a "based" Trump supporter. ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, too much detail. As MelanieN said, we should keep this article to broad strokes. I would like to see several sections trimmed as they have their own articles and too much has been left behind here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to trim the paragraph per discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2017

Please let me edit this page. Change X to Y. 67.165.218.118 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC) No. Please specify what changes you wish to make. X to Y is not really specific.Crboyer (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Pic of family

I uploaded this picture to Commons today, maybe it would be better than Hollywood Squares in the "family" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Melania Trump

Donald Trump, Jr.

Ivanka Trump

Eric Trump

Tiffany Trump

Barron Trump

A worthy addition to the encyclopedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The photos there now are informative for the reader. This one is not. No need to fixate on this. The photos there now are fine. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This inaugural photo has historic value, plus it shows all the children, just as the collection of separate photos does in the BLP now (see below the inaugural photo). It is also more relevant to show a "family" together as a family in the "family" section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The photo array identifies his family members and that has encyclopedic value. It does not need to be historical. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the inaugural photo also identify the family members? Why you think the inaugural photo is not informative eludes me. I agree that photos for this BLP don't have to be historic, but historic photos do add to encyclopedic value when they're available, as in this case. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The photo array needs to get promptly removed for unfairness to one of the subjects, per WP:BLP#Balance. The six images are grossly unbalanced: photo 1 is twice the size of photo 2. Photos 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 show their subjects formally dressed; photo 2 shows its subject tieless, backdropped by a big "E" and a little "IN". Does this subliminally suggest he's "in" ... or "out"? Too confusing. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It was only inserted a few days ago, on April 30.[5] Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed. The inaugural photo looks like it's balanced and fair to the subjects. Could you go ahead and add it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, not me, I've pledged to not edit this article for the time being, to avoid any appearance of making this a battleground. But I support adding it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree w/ Anythingyouwant and Dervorguilla that the inaugural photo is better for purposes of an encyclopedia than either the former "Hollywood Squares" collection, or the current one (which is too dim and obscured w/o being enlarged beyond what is appropriate for the article). I will be replacing the current w/ the inaugural, now. --IHTS (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaugural picture has all his children in the same context, that's good. This particular image is blurred, however; can we find a snap of the same scene with better quality? — JFG ^talk 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that they are in a crowd of people and you can't even see Donald Jr. clearly. The photo is too small, but even if we enlarge it, it would still be confusing. We need another photo of the whole family with just them and no others in the background. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Before entering politics...

I just read this article for the first time and the second sentence jarred me. This sentence has said for more than 400 edits "Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." However, in the second paragraph it says "...he hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015" and in the third "Trump first publicly expressed interest in running for political office in 1987."

These sentences are inconsistent. He entered politics in 1987 (or at least by 2000) but he didn't become a TV personality until 2004. Trump ran his businesses both before and during the campaign. The way the second sentence is phrased, a reader might think that there was a fairly abrupt shift between Trump as the businessman and television personality and Trump as a candidate for president.

Wouldn't it be better if we said something like "Before winning the presidency he was a businessman and television personality" or "Before running for president in 2015 he was a businessman and television personality"? Or even "He ran a real-estate business for 45 years and hosted a television program from 2004 to 2015 before winning the presidency in 2016"? Or something else?

This, of course, will require whole bunch of consensus. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made this point many, many times. I offered an alternative that worked just fine, but editors made up tons of lame excuses to hide the fact they wanted to exclude "politician" from the lede:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician. On January 20, 2017, he became the 45th and current President of the United States.

Anyway, I doubt you will be able to get any movement from the barbarian horde. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:RoyGoldsmith, there was a recent survey at this talk page about this matter, here (scroll to "Survey about"). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: "Television personality" means "television celebrity" (not "television producer"). He was both a celebrity and on television before 2000. The sentence is, as you point out, confusing, but it's not actual fake news. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and others: Thanks for the recent survey. I see what you mean. I swore when I got through with Tea Party movement that I would never get into another ultra-contentious article again. Serves me right.

Could you describe objectively how we settled on the current consensus? Was it just because, considering all of the modifications we could make, that second sentence (or something like it) was short and expresses the main points of what we wanted to get across, even though it's not technically correct? Or something far more complex? I don't want to start a new argument but I do want to know. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead is now false

This recent edit changed the lead to say that Trump is the fifth president elected with less than a majority of the popular vote. That is false, as the number is actually much higher (the correct number is at least 19). This change is also contrary to a recent RFC that concluded: "No consensus for a change. In about a proportion of 3 to 2, editors prefer the current text per option 1 ('elected with less than a plurality') to any of the other options that involve some variant of 'lost'." Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Did this fix the problem? ~Awilley (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Actually, after skimming the RfC you linked, I simplified it further to avoid the word "lost" that so many objected to, and to put it in plain English that nobody can misunderstand. ~Awilley (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It says now that he's "the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving fewer votes than his opponent." He received less of the national popular vote, but received more electoral votes, and the latter are the votes that count. The current version is talking about the national popular vote but doesn't say so, and therefore is confusing. I would suggest going back to the RFC version or clarifying what votes we're talking about. The RFC version also had the advantage of indicating that the opponent won a plurality rather than a majority. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is going to read "votes" and interpret it as "electoral votes". But if you insist, "...while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent" also avoids the "plurality" jargon. ~Awilley (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: I believe there is a prior consensus on this sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@SW3, I see the consensus in the RfC not to use the word "lost". But RfCs are blunt tools and should not be used to prevent incremental improvements to an article. Just because a bunch of people agree it is confusing to say Trump "lost" something doesn't mean we have to use jargon like "plurality". I think I'm fairly well-educated, but I learned what the word "plurality" meant while watching the discussion on this talk page a few months ago. People shouldn't have to follow wikilinks in order to understand what an encyclopedia is saying. That's the whole point of WP:Jargon. ~Awilley (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: We've had problems with editors who have WP:OWN problems. That's why this isn't settled properly. There have been a few RfC's but they failed because they were undermined. I agree we should eliminate plurality. As for the claim that Trump is not the fifth to lose the popular vote, that's not true. He is. That argument was hashed out, too, and settled. So ignore that. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it must be clear that we're talking about the popular vote. This is especially necessary for historical purposes (context gets lost with time) and for those unfamiliar with USA politics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, as of right now, the article says, "...and the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent." Are you wanting it more clear than that? ~Awilley (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Awilley, that is better. My point was that elimination of the distinction between total votes and popular votes created a problem. It's better now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SW3, when he says "there is a prior consensus". There was a pre-existing stable version, and no consensus to change it. Moreover, the word "plurality" is used in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Google News currently has tens of thousands of hits for this word. We wikilinked the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with the word. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.[6] Clinton won a plurality, not a majority, and that is indicated by saying Trump won less than a plurality. Why omit this key fact? It's very rare for a president to be elected with less of the popular vote than an opponent who won less than a majority of that vote. As currently phrased, the lead suggests that Clinton may have won a majority, perhaps a landslide majority, which is not necessary for us to suggest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There are several holes in your logic. There will always be a pre-existing stable version on Wikipedia, and consensus can always change. Every word in the English language will have many hits on Google, but that doesn't mean we should use them all in the Lead section of this article. Your Google books search of "high school plurality" demonstrates only that a math text book used plurality in a story problem. And nobody is suggesting that Clinton won a majority or a landslide majority (see straw man).

As far as I can tell, our primary disagreement here is that you think we should use the words "elected with less than a plurality" and I think we should say "received a smaller share of the popular vote". Let's see if we can't agree on this: A "smaller share of the popular vote" is "less than a plurality". And "less than a plurality" is "a smaller share of the popular vote". Can we agree that A=B and B=A? ~Awilley (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the longstanding stable version, your new version does not indicate that Clinton got less than a majority of the popular vote. If you can concisely restore that information without the word "plurality" then please do. Saying "less than a plurality" suggests that Clinton got a plurality, saying by "less than a majority" suggests that she got a majority. The latter is false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about Clinton, and there's nothing particularly noteworthy about a losing candidate receiving less than half the vote. And nobody here has suggested that we should say Trump won "less than a majority". (Straw man again.) But you haven't answered my question. ~Awilley (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

When we say candidate A got more votes than candidate B, and we don't mention any candidate C, doesn't that suggest candidate A got a majority? I think so. Democrats emphasize that Clinton got more votes. That's true so we should put that in the lead. Republicans emphasize that Clinton's popular vote lead was not so big that she won a majority. That's true too, but you want to now suddenly exclude it from the lead. All I'm saying is that I disagree. I'm not going to revert you, given my promise not to edit the article. So go ahead and do what you want. I'm just saying that it gives the lead a partisan bias. And I think you know very well that it's very noteworthy when a losing candidate who receives less than half the vote nevertheless gets more votes than the winner. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Can we agree that A=B and B=A? Yes. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that if A=B then B=A, no argument from me about that. Trump got fewer votes than Clinton, but heaven forbid we also mention that the vote difference was not so large as to give Clinton a majority. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree w/ Anythingyouwant. Use "less than a plurality". (It is a bad idea to leave the text the way it is now, that Trump won less popular vote than his opponent. It is a bad idea because of the social environment the USA is and has been in, where Trump haters have and do take everything that isn't nailed down specifically, as mud to throw. [Don't know what I mean? Then turn on any media. The fact Trump said "I'm not standing by anything" when specifically meaning his comments re Obama, is used by liberal press to suggest Trump has "admitted" that he doesn't stand by anything he says about anything. Hell, I even heard Whoopi repeat again this week that "He said it!" -- referring to Trump's June 2015 comment about some Mexican illegal immigrants being rapists, where Trump left out word "illegal" but clearly meant it and clarified also later. The point is, there is so much concerted intentional hatred towards Trump, if you say in WP article Trump received less than a majority of popular vote, even though true, it will be picked up and intentionally twisted by Trump haters to imply that we have a president whose opponent received a popular majority while he did not. [How many times will that argument be made? Oh, perhaps thousands of times.] WHY would you add fuel to that fire in this environment, when "less than a plurality" fixes the situation and is totally encyclopedic, not only correct, but clear w/o adding wood to this crappy social-environment fire? But neither do I believe that this article isn't dominated by those who would fan flames of said unnecessary fire, as WP is a sort of "major media" too, not without bias.) --IHTS (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's just not as simple as that. As I have said before, it's only Americans who use the term "plurality". In many other English-speaking nations, the term "majority" is used to refer to the winning margin of one candidate over another ("Clinton had a majority over Trump"). In still others, "majority" is used instead of "plurality" ("Clinton won a majority") - even though it is technically wrong. It's better if unambiguous, easy-to-understand terms are used - even if it means using more words than should really be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The OED agrees. It specifically states plurality is used in this manner in “U.S. Politics”. Objective3000 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Awilley's edits. Using "plurality" is like putting up a speed bump for the reader. The 'plurality' argument is old and we should allow new editors to come along and make these changes. The article needs to be a smooth read and right now it is not. I keep referring to Barack Obama, but if you start reading it, you'll find it's a smooth and interesting read. Right now, this article is choppy, filled with disjointed sentences, and lately, attempts to smooth things out have been getting reverted flat out. I say let the edit stand a few days. And @Scjessey:, if you'll recall we had a gathering consensus that was subverted with an RfC that came out of nowhere. Interesting how those things cropped up at just when things were getting resolved. That's happened several times now. Let Awilley's edit stand. It's time to move on. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• First point: the article clearly says, in an invisible comment, "DO NOT CHANGE anything in this paragraph without prior consensus, see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, items 8 and 15." So why do people keep changing it?
• Second point: what exactly IS the consensus version? Consensus #4 said "Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers." That has been struck out and replaced by Consensus #15, but Consensus #15 does not quote the consensus version, thus there is no easy way to know what it's supposed to say. It links to "the pre-RfC text" which says "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory againstDemocratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest andwealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote." That was presumably the consensus version up to now. Right now the article says "and the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent." That was the version put in by Awilley, in response to somebody changing it who obviously didn't know what "plurality" means. In effect it more or less restores consensus #4. I happen to prefer Awilley's version, but what happened to process and consensus? I'd like to lock this in and once again make the invisible comment mean something, so I am proposing a yes/no vote, below, to approve or disapprove Awilley's version. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I appreciate your second point about process, so I should probably explain mine. My first edit last night was a hurried response to Anythingyouwant's post that there was something false in the Lead. I saw that the previous editor was confused about what "plurality" meant, so instead of reverting outright I tweaked it to say Trump won the election but lost the popular vote. After making that edit, I re-read Anything's post and followed the link to the RfC where I saw consensus against using the word "lost". So I tweaked the wording again to say Trump received fewer votes than Clinton, and then tweaked it again because of another objection by Anythingyouwant. I discussed it with him for some time, hoping we could find agreement without having to resort to another RfC or something like that, because that is, in my opinion, how Wikipedia should work. You see a problem, make a change, discuss objections, find common ground, then implement a compromise. Respecting community consensus is definitely important, but should not get in the way of tweaking a sentence to make it more clear without changing its meaning.

Regarding hidden comments, I'm not a huge fan. When an article is well-written, clearly, stating uncontroversial facts with due weight and in neutral language, readers stop feeling the need to jump in and change stuff. Unfortunately the partisan tug-of-wars in articles like this too often result in jarring sentences with competing points of view, locked in by clumsy RfCs that make hidden edit warnings necessary. ~Awilley (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hidden comments may be against guidelines. But, when it comes to recent politics, no matter how well-written an article, there is no way to satisfy everyone and folk will always feel the need to jump in and change stuff. At least, so it appears. Objective3000 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: I couldn't agree with you more. @Objective3000: That's true, but it is against guidelines. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and SW3 5DL: Where is there a guideline against hidden comments? --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:HIDDEN says When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. But, the last time I saw anyone make a complaint, an admin said this was a good example of WP:IAR. Objective3000 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Options about popular vote

• A. (the version up until yesterday): ...and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
  
• B. (proposed new version, currently in the article): ...and the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent.
• B2. (proposed new version, shorter): ...and the fifth to receive a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent.
• B3. (proposed new version, shorter): ...and the fifth to have won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. Technically incorrect because of Jackson situation.
• B4. (fixing B3): ...and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote.
• A2. (proposed new version, clearer): ...and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote (i.e. Clinton received more votes but not a majority).

Please choose only between these two versions. Don't propose third versions, because the proliferation of other opinions is the reason why these discussions too often end in "no consensus". Minor tweaks to the wording can be made after an overall approach is decided.

Sorry, I can't fathom the lengthy wording of option B although I believe that "a smaller share" is clearer than "less than a plurality". I would say …and the fifth to receive a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent, because we already say he won the election. Call it version B2. — JFG ^talk 16:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I am adding a version "A2" proposed below by another editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Version B. Clear, simple, does not require an understanding of the sophisticated and somewhat obscure term "plurality". Remember we are writing here for the world, not just for highly educated Americans. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would accept version B2 as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would accept B4 as well. B4 has the advantage that it matches with the wording used by most Reliable Sources. We had been avoiding any reference to "winning" or "losing" the popular vote because the popular vote is not an actual contest - but that might be considered Original Research on our part. B4 is clear and understandable and is not likely to cause as much edit warring as we have seen up to now over this sentence. This is in fact the wording we use in the article text, and to the extent that the lede is supposed to reflect the text this could be the preferred choice. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Version B - Plurality is a speed bump for the reader.. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version B4 - settles the matter without the speed bump. @BullRangifer: Are you going to update to B4? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version B4. (UPDATED) Simple and clear. Getting rid of "plurality" really helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Either A or B. If plurality is a problem, wikilink it like this: plurality. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @RoyGoldsmith: MOS:LINKSTYLE, 9th, 10th, and 11th bullets. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mandruss: I specifically said "If plurality is a problem..." Personally, I don't think it is. Therefore (IMHO), no wikilink. But, by the way, in the lead section space is at a premium. Links take less space than even a one-word explanation and no one has the follow the link. So (IMHO again), we ought to take LINKSTYLE with a bit of salt when applying them to the lead. And I don't understand your bullets 10 and 11; they don't seem to apply. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version A or something else that says neither candidate got a majority Version A2. This is much clearer, indicates the vote was close, and that no candidate got a majority. If I had to choose between B and B2, the latter is vastly more concise and polished, but both B and B2 imply that Trump had only one opponent, and thus that his opponent won a majority of the popular vote which is manifestly false. Regarding B4, I'm against it primarily because it contradicts a prior RFC that decided against using variants of the word "lose", but also because B4 fails to indicate that no candidate got a majority of the popular vote; that information is provided by both A and A2, thereby implicitly telling the reader that the popular vote was not a landslide and also that some other candidate(s) got a significant percentage. The latter is a very important aspect of the election, and is indicated by saying Trump got less than a plurality. By the way, Roy Goldsmith is right about wikilinking (the previous stable version included that wikilink). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, he is not right, per MOS:LINKSTYLE, 9th, 10th, and 11th bullets. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Roy Goodsmith did not say why we ought to have a wikilink. If the word plurality is fairly understandable to most readers, or even to 100% of them, there's still no prohibition on wikilinking it for further information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Roy Goldsmith supported A (or failed to reject it, rather) wiith the rationale that it can be linked and therefore does not need to be previously understood by the average reader. That rationale is contrary to MOS:LINKSTYLE. I for one didn't know what the word meant until about a year ago, and I'm 60 years old and think I have a better than average vocabulary. If you can produce evidence that "the word plurality is fairly understandable to most readers", kindly do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
        • See my comment above at 06:01, 3 May 2017. In any event, I am happy to remove the word "plurality" if we would simply compensate by adding "and while neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Version B2 – Say "smaller share" but with shorter prose. — JFG ^talk 16:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  @JFG: I can see B2 working. Let's see what @Awilley: thinks. It's really just a little copy edit so it's not so wordy. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support B-whatever. The purpose of a Lead section is not to expand our readers' vocabulary by making them click on wikilinks, but to convey information using words most people already know. It shouldn't take an RfC to marginally improve a sentence without changing its meaning, and the current B version is longer than it needs to be because I was chasing the moving goal post of satisfying Anythingyouwant's many objections.

  Responding briefly to Anything's latest objection, it seems like a red herring to me. I have tried and failed to understand why it is important that we emphasize that Clinton got less than 50% of votes. This article isn't about Clinton, and it's the Lead section we're talking about. Could there conceivably be people who will read that Trump received fewer votes than Clinton and interpret it that Clinton won in a "landslide"? Of course. And most of those people will continue to believe that no matter what we write. It's not our job to write to the extreme fringes. Details on win-loss percentages and an in-line definition of "plurality" should be in the body of the article. ~Awilley (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  Please note that when User:Awilley !voted for version "B-whatever" there was no version B4 yet (i.e. B4 was added at 15:26, 4 May 2017). Moreover, B4 seems contrary to this RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tangential meta discussion about editing comments after they have been replied to and a little personal back-and-forth ~Awilley (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Anything, your newest concern [7] that you added to your comment after it had been replied to (please stop doing that) is easily resolved by replacing the words "his opponent" with "Clinton". ~Awilley (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC) My "concern" has been the same throughout: you have been implying that Clinton got a majority of the popular vote. You're right, I did add to my !vote after it had been replied to, but you quite predictably fail to acknowledge that I used underline and strikethrough as recommended, so please stop Wiki lawyering and painting me as some kind of disruptive influence, thanks. You might even want to make a peep when someone edits their comment without indicating the changes, after they've been replied to (see my protest above at this page). I will reply separately regarding your latest new proposal, which I assume is made because you acknowledge the falsity of versions B and B2. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Regarding replacing "his opponent" with "Clinton", the falsity would remain. As I said above, "When we say candidate A got more votes than candidate B, and we don't mention any candidate C, doesn't that suggest candidate A got a majority?" Of course it does. I don't understand the problem with simply saying what happened per version "A2". Your criticism was that we shouldn't say "Clinton" because this isn't her BLP, but now you're suggesting to insert "Clinton", and even so that doesn't remove the problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Anythingyouwant, on the editing comments, underlining the addition and placing it without a new time stamp in the middle of another comment that is already 75% underlined and stricken isn't very helpful. But we're way out in meta territory here. Let's get back to the central issue. Of course I acknowledge that there's a problem with implying that Trump had only one opponent. How about the following: ...and the fifth to receive a smaller share of the popular vote than an opponent. This implies (correctly) that the vote was split between more than 2 candidates, making it more likely that none of them got more than 50% which I think is your primary concern. Thoughts? I really would rather work together than fight you on this, and I apologize if my remarks about editing comments came across as overly personal. I commented because I was genuinely annoyed. ~Awilley (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• A. We don't need to worry about B or B2. No one's going to find a supporting source for them, so they'd likely get immediately eventually reverted, either for alleged falsity or per WP:BLPSOURCES. (The subject had three significant opponents, not one.) The only remaining choices are A, A2, and Abort. And A2 would likely get fought over per WP:BLP#Balance. Some reasonable (if partisan) editors could feel it's unfair to Johnson (without whom the subject might well have won the national popular vote). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 06:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Dervorguilla: The main question here is whether "less than a plurality of the popular vote" should be replaced with "a smaller share of the popular vote" or something along those lines. The problem you are describing is easily remedied by replacing "his opponent" with "an opponent", since the latter implies that there were more than 2 candidates. ~Awilley (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  "We don't need to worry about B or B2. No one's going to find a supporting source for them" No? How about Vox? "Trump will be the 4th president to win the Electoral College after getting fewer votes than his opponent" and "it’s important to remember that he received fewer votes from Americans than Hillary Clinton"[8] --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You're right. It looks like I ... misspoke. (But it's a bit questionable whether Vox would be RS here, given that they seem to have miscounted, no?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Vox didn't miscount. Some sources said fourth, some said fifth. It depends on how they count the election of 1824, where Jackson won the popular vote AND the electoral college vote but lost in the House of Representatives. BTW I couldn't find any major Reliable Source using the word "plurality" to describe this outcome. Can you? (Moving this question to the Discussion section so we don't clutter up the Survey any more than we already have.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and Dervorguilla: To avoid hinting that there were only two candidates, we could add just one little word to B2: …and the fifth to receive a smaller share of the popular vote than his main opponent. Would you support that for brevity? — JFG ^talk 18:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support B2 - Absolutely spot on for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

It's unfortunate that there is no attempt in the options provided to rephrase Option A so as to overcome the objections to it, while retaining the important fact that neither candidate obtained a popular vote majority. I would be glad to educate readers: "and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote (i.e. elected with less than the highest number of votes received by any candidate when no candidate received a majority)." Or rephrase it without the word plurality: "and the fifth elected with less than the highest number of votes received by any candidate when no candidate received a majority". Leaving out that no candidate got a majority is biased in favor of Clinton, suggests that she got a majority, and completely fails to distinguish between a landslide and a squeaker. Or say it even more plainly: "and the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent, and while no candidate received a majority of the popular vote." The poll is slanted otherwise, it seems to me. Arguing that in many elections no candidate receives a majority is beside the point; it's like arguing that we shouldn't mention Trump has children because may presidents have had children, or that we shouldn't mention in the lead that he's from New York because many people are from New York; the info is needed here because otherwise many readers will think she received a majority (which is what the DNC would like people to think, by the way). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your proposed wording looks even more convoluted than the proposed versions. The fact that Clinton didn't get a majority either is best left for her article. I don't see that it's implied by the "smaller share of the popular vote" wording. Only people with a predetermined bias towards thinking "Trump is illegitimate" would see this phrase as confirmation of their prejudice. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The green text I provided is not convoluted at all. You really think adding this is convoluted: "while no candidate received a majority of the popular vote"?If we merely say that candidate A got more votes than candidate B, and we don't mention any candidate C, that obviously suggests candidate A got a majority. Version B also gives no clue whether the popular vote gap was huge or tiny, which is a huge omission that is taken care of by the green text I suggested. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "huge omission", it's just too much detail for this bio. In a prior discussion (open the collapsed section and look at "Benchmarking"), we looked at many presidents' biographies, to check in which level of detail their elections were described. None went to such lengths, not even the agonizingly close Bush election in 2000, which merely says that Bush was elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent. Very similar to version B here. — JFG ^talk 17:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's nothing like Version B here. Version B here does not indicate in the slightest way that the popular vote tally was "close". Both the GW Bush and JQ Adams leads say it was close, and the proposed version here does not, obviously. Additionally, the JQ Adams lead says that there were more than two candidates, which removes the implication that one of the candidates obtained a majority of the popular vote. Neither the Adams lead nor the Benjamin Harrison lead says the winner lost the popular vote; I don't object to us saying that here as long as we don't imply Clinton won a majority. My global preference would be for only the Rutherford B. Hayes lead to discuss that he got less votes than his opponent, because in that case the matter was much more controversial given that the opponent (Tilden) got more than 50%. If we want to falsely suggest that Clinton got a popular vote majority, and suggest that Trump's presidency violates the principle of majority rule, then absolutely we should adopt this new proposed version. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anything, you have been very insistent for months that we MUST make it clear that Clinton got less than a majority. You are entitled to your opinion and have expressed it. Continuing to WP:BLUDGEON it does not make it any more correct, and does not make your opinion count for more than anyone else's. This is a survey. Let's see what people think, and respect consensus when it develops. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite your screaming the word "MUST", I never said that User:MelanieN. I said that if we imply that one of the candidates got a majority of the popular vote, we should stop because it did not happen. I don't know how more meek and deferential I could possibly be than voluntarily opting to not edit this BLP. I guess I need to shut up entirely. Apparently the editors here do not want to even indicate in the lead that the popular vote was close. Fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't close. "No candidate in history has won the popular vote by so much yet lost the White House."[9] I'm not suggesting we point that out either, but it would be more accurate than "close". --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added an Option A2 proposed below by another editor. It adheres to NPOV. Your comparison of the election to only four others regarding closeness is rather a limited comparison, no? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: OK, now I get your point. And it's an excellent one. I would advocate changing the Hillary Clinton lead accordingly. Would you have any thoughts as to why it currently uses the "plurality" phrasing instead? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's deal with one article at a time, OK? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Again I agree w/ Anythingyouwant, we s/n leave any weak inference dangling that Clinton won a majority. (It's just not healthy.) How are either of these (the first w/ "plurality", the second w/o):

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote (i.e. Clinton received more votes but not a majority). His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth who received a smaller share of the popular vote than an opponent who did not achieve a majority. His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.

Ok, --IHTS (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, "the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote (i.e. Clinton received more votes but not a majority)" is perfect. I've added it as option "A2". Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.' was in the article already before Awilley changed it. It doesn't need to add that Clinton didn't get a majority of the vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

For now, let's just quietly shut this down and restore A. It doesn't look like this survey is going anywhere. Any passing editor could immediately revert B or B2 -- and keep reverting -- per WP:BLPSOURCES or for falsity. (Trump had three significant opponents, not one.) A2 might stay for awhile, but any passing Libertarian editor could demand a new survey based on WP:BLP#Balance (unfair to name Clinton but not Johnson, who could arguably have given Trump the popular vote by endorsing him). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the longstanding A should be restored until we get consensus for a new version that is not manifestly false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this one? ...and the fifth to receive a smaller share of the popular vote than an opponent. ~Awilley (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We need to deal with this repeated claim that it is somehow "false" to say that he got a smaller share of the popular vote than someone else. A few of you are inferring that this means the other person got a majority, but that is not at all implied in the statement, and it is not a conclusion that most people would jump to. This is an attempt to solve a non-problem. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. BTW the George W. Bush says "becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes than his opponent". This has been in the article for a decade. It's apparently never bothered anybody. Now all of a sudden, it's false? --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"This has been in the article for a decade." False. (It bounced around to a lot of expressions, the first it started moving in the direction of "fewer votes" was in this edit from 2012.) --IHTS (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, half a decade. (I assume we wound up with that wording, having previously said "lost" the popular vote, for the same reason as we are avoiding "lost" here even though most Reliable Sources use it: because the popular vote is not actually a contest. If we were going strictly by Reliable Source usage we would say in both articles that he "lost the popular vote".) My point was, and is, that this wording doesn't seem to have been regarded as "false", i.e., that it might somehow falsely imply that Gore got a majority of the popular vote. This wording isn't false there, and it isn't false here. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thanks for coming up with a comparatively concise and logical solution. But the verb tense is wrong. He wasn't "...the fifth [presidency-assumer] to receive..." He was "...the fifth [presidency-assumer] to have received..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to receive a smaller share of the popular vote than an opponent. I'm not a grammar expert, but it works both ways for me. ("He became...the fifth...to receive..." vs. "He became...the fifth...to have received...") ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"For now, let's just quietly shut this down and restore A." Strongly disagree. This discussion has been open less than 24 hours, and it is currently running 2-to-1 in favor of option B. Please do not attempt to short-circuit the discussion in favor of your own preferred outcome. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: "Option B's", not "option B". We're now up to three four option B's, not one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 04:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

True. But there are still twice as many people wanting a version of "B" than there are wanting a version of "A". We are looking at which approach to take - wording to be tweaked later if necessary.--MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Version B has consensus. It should be implemented and this continuing disruption about,"neither candidate won a majority of the vote' needs to be stopped. It means nothing to the outcome, it means nothing in the article, and it means nothing on this talk page except more disruption. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Version B seems to solve the problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed the shortest version yet as B3. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Short is not a virtue if deficient. --IHTS (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Is it deficient? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Labelling good-faith argument as "disruption" and insisting "needs to be stopped" is what is disruptive. Text that says only Clinton won "more votes" or "won the popular vote" leaves begging whether she won a majority, and even though nothing is technically implied by the omission she didn't, readers are gonna presume that who are otherwise unfamiliar. And that's bad. --IHTS (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Thanks for the helpful suggestion. The verb tense is wrong, though. It's "to have won", not "to win". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Now it's fixed. Will it work, or is it "deficient", as implied(?) by IHTS above? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, he's the 5th to have won the election while losing the popular vote. But he's only the 4th to have won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. In 1824 John Quincy Adams won the presidency while losing the popular vote and failing to get more than 50% in the electoral college. ~Awilley (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Awilley, that's true. Per how we handle it at United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, it's probably wisest that we just ignore that weird detail about the Jackson election and only mention whoever won the election and lost the popular vote (in the lead). It's simpler that way. The details can be in the body, but leave it out of the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed with version B4. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Despite winning a plurality of the national popular vote, Clinton lost the Electoral College and the presidency to her Republican opponent Donald Trump." We can stop worrying about using the word "plurality": that featured article doesn't even bother to link the term. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I like B3. I believe that was a choice in one or more of the multiple discussions about this before. What we don't want is to say "neither candidate won a majority of the vote." That is totally misleading and will likely draw edit wars. This choice, A2, is not tenable. When you have to explain an edit to the reader, it's a bad edit ". . .and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote (i.e. Clinton received more votes but not a majority)." SW3 5DL (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? (What is "not tenable"? What is "totally misleading"? What will "likely draw edit wars" and why?) Oh, am I being "disruptive" an "need to be stopped" again?? --IHTS (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say?

New issue: Above I raised the question of what Reliable Sources say, but am moving it here. What wording do Reliable Sources use? The vast majority talk in terms of "winning" or "losing" the popular vote.[10][11][12] We do use that wording in the article text. But in the lede, we chose to avoid a win-lose wording because the popular vote isn't an actual contest. That left us choosing between "fewer/less/smaller share" of the popular vote (option B, B2) and "less than a plurality" of the popular vote (option A, A2). I did find one source using the "fewer" terminology: Vox. "Trump will be the 4th president to win the Electoral College after getting fewer votes than his opponent" and "it’s important to remember that he received fewer votes from Americans than Hillary Clinton"[13] I did not find any major Reliable Source using the word "plurality"; anyone? Looked at in these terms, Wikipedia policy suggests we should use version B3 B4, because it is based on what Reliable Sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think BullRangifer's B3 reflects RS. Also, the argument over 'majority' is the real false argument. The only votes that count in the American presidential election, are the electoral votes, where the candidate must achieve a minimum of 270 electoral votes. So this banging on about 'majority' is a false argument about either electoral or popular votes for this election. The so-called 'popular vote' cannot overcome the electoral college winner. Hillary could easily have got the majority of the popular vote and she would still have lost this election if those votes were not scattered among the states to give her 270. I suggest, through a process of elimination, we agree on certain points. The first is the most important, because otherwise, the rest is moot. Do we want to eliminate A, which is what is in the article now? Yes or No? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We're always on safer ground when we follow the wording used in most RS. In common parlance, which is what most RS use, talking about winning the election (which is not the same as winning the voting) refers to whoever got the most electoral votes (which is subject to backroom dealings). Note that the people do not cast electoral votes, only popular votes. The actual number of votes cast by voters is the popular vote, and that's what's usually being referred to when sources talk about whoever won the most votes. Those are the votes which were cast by voters. That's why RS talk about winning and losing the popular vote. We should apply both "win" and "lose" terminology to each candidate (Trump won the election because he got the most electoral votes, but lost the popular vote, while Clinton lost the election but won the popular vote.). -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Just alerting that there is now a version B4, since B3 was actually inaccurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Those arguments were debated at length and repeatedly found wanting. The latest RfC concluded that there was no consensus to include any variant of "losing the popular vote". I think this horse should rest in peace and proposal B4 should be withdrawn. — JFG ^talk 17:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

How important is "not a majority"?

The other issue under debate here, aside from whether to use "plurality" (A, A2), "smaller share" (B, B2), or "won"(B4), is that a vocal minority thinks it is important to point out that Clinton did not win an actual majority of the popular vote. They claim it is false to report the popular vote outcome without such a disclaimer, because readers will automatically assume she got a majority if it isn't explicitly stated that she didn't. I haven't seen any evidence for that, and most Reliable Sources have seemed comfortable omitting that clarification. We already do make that point in the article text. Let's reach a consensus about whether "not a majority" (or "plurality," which implies not-a-majority to those who understand the term and its implications) needs to be in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The question of 'not a majority' is a false argument. As I pointed out above, the Americans do not use the popular vote to elect the president. They use the electoral college. Trump won 306 electoral votes. He won 57% of the EC vote which is the majority that counts. There's no need to go on about the 'majority' of the popular vote as it is undue weight. Trump won the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote as the RS has noted. That's all we need to say. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a misleading parity, since Trump won a majority of electoral college votes, but Clinton did not win a majority of popular votes. --IHTS (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't use "plurality". This creates an issue where there is none, as long as we leave it alone. Without dealing with it it's understood just fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Just alerting that there is now a version B4, since B3 was actually inaccurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to strike out B3 so that it doesn't confuse the situation? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Side conversation about now-deleted material. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MelanieN: Could you please remove that comment in the hat? I was not at all attempting to be disruptive. I was responding to your comment and was attemping to sort the discussion. I was not trying to subvert it. I wanted to revert the whole thing but BullRangifer commented at the survey. @BullRangifer: Could you please go back and remove your comment from the survey I put up, so that I can delete my portion of the survey? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) SW3 5DL: Looks like BullRangifer has already done so. If you want to delete the whole thing, including the hat, that is OK with me, and thank you. I know you did not intend to be disruptive, but opening new discussion threads and new survey sections while an original discussion is still going on has been a source of disruption to this page in the past. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC) P.S. and if you want to delete this exchange between you and me, that is OK with me as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN: Yes, I can see how that would look like that, but sincerely did not intend that. Thanks. And thanks @BullRangifer:. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

How important is it for the lead to imply that Clinton won a majority?

Version B says: "the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent." This obviously implies that there was only one opponent, and therefore that that opponent won a majority of the popular vote. The same is true of version B2. It's one thing to deliberately exclude from the lead that neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote, but quite another to include in the lead a manifestly false implication that one of the candidates did obtain a majority. Is it not obvious that the lead ought to be accurate? Moreover, if we include information about who got more of the popular vote (unlike in the Wikipedia leads for John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Harrison who both received less than opponents), then I don't see any harm in mentioning very briefly that no candidate got a majority, which has the added benefit of indicating that this was not a landslide election in the popular vote (about which versions B and B2 give no hint). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The false nature of B and B2 could be somewhat alleviated (e.g. by inserting the word "main"), but it would seem to require a new survey, and in any case I strongly oppose the consistent efforts here to to do somersaults (and jump through hoops and bend over backward) in order to avoid any suggestion in the lead that perhaps Clinton might not have won a majority. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Would making it into "main opponent" satisfy your objection? If so, that could be the compromise that brings us consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, inserting that word would alleviate the problem, though many readers would probably still assume that Clinton won a majority of the popular vote. My objection remains that we are going to extraordinary lengths to omit a simple clarifying fact that also tells readers that this was not a landslide in the popular vote. And this survey should be closed as faulty. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There was only one opponent. Neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein won any electoral votes. Johnson won around 1% of the popular vote and Jill Stein won 0.36 of the popular vote. Statistically they don't even register. As for wining/losing majorities, B4 settles it. Trump won the electoral vote, which counts, and lost the popular vote, which does not count. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to focus on electoral votes rather than the popular vote regarding Johnson and Stein, then do so for Clinton and Trump as well. I disagree with you that we should call Trump a loser in the lead while implying Clinton got a majority of the popular vote. Your position violates WP:NPOV, don't you think? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've read over my comments several times now, I don't see anywhere that I called Trump a loser. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You've supported version B4 which states: "and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote." That matter was also discussed in this RFC, where the closer stated: "In about a proportion of 3 to 2, editors prefer the current text per option 1 ('elected with less than a plurality') to any of the other options that involve some variant of 'lost'". Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What's that got to do with claiming I am suggesting we call Trump a loser? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, you want to put that Trump was "losing" into the lead, and "losing" is a variant of lost and a variant of loser Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a gross distortion because, no, that does not follow at all. Calling Trump a loser is slanderous, but saying, ". . .he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote," is simply stating facts. I don't see how that in any way makes him a 'loser' especially in the sense that you are obviously using it. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

How important is it... to recognize that the lede does NOT imply that Clinton won a majority? This particular interpretation, and especially the odd notion that the statement is "false" because of the way some people might interpret it, seems to be unique to a few people on this page. (Suppose I say "I like eggs"; is that statement false because some people might infer from it that I am a vegetarian? Do I have to add "and also meat" to make it true?) Most Reliable Sources (and our longstanding George W. Bush article) don't seem to have this concern, and it may ultimately come down to a few outliers (no matter how passionate) not being able to overcome consensus and policy. Policy like WP:RS. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Which statement are we talking about? There are so many now. . .SW3 5DL (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about the statements Anything objects to - the ones that don't specify "not a majority" or "plurality". The "B" statements. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

So, Melanie, when version B refers to "his opponent" that doesn't imply he had only one significant opponent? Obviously it implies that. And if the only significant opponent got more votes, then that opponent necessarily got a majority. I believe you might just be bludgeoning and POV-pushing here? After you accused me of making this article a "battleground", I disagreed but voluntarily pledged to stop editing this article. I hope that decision has not paved the way for blatant POV in this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem she's doing any such thing. It's very clear. I agree with her vegetarian analogy. When we have to keep adding to make something clear to the reader, we've probably got the wrong sentence. And Trump did have only one significant opponent because the other two had no chance of winning the Electoral College, whereas, Hillary did have a chance. The others were not real opponents to either Trump or Hillary. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

See "How Gary Johnson and Jill Stein helped elect Donald Trump", CNN.

• Trump: 62,984,825 which was 46.09%
• Clinton: 65,853,518 which was 48.18%
• Johnson: 4,489,221 which was 3.28%
• Stein: 1,457,216 which was 1.07%

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About "one significant opponent", I offered to accept your suggestion of "his main opponent" - thus making it clear there were others - but apparently that still doesn't satisfy you. About "bludgeoning", I would be happy to have someone count up how many times in the past few days you have posted here that it's essential to point out that she didn't get a majority, or how often you have claimed that any statement that doesn't overtly say that is "false" - vs. how many times I have disagreed with you about "false". ("Blatant POV" is a new one, and rather over the top if you mean that some people might interpret an accurate statement to come up with an inaccurate conclusion.) As for "battleground", I will just say, you certainly have a funny way of stopping editing this article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe someone should count up the times you have wrongly asserted I think it's essential for the lead to say she didn't get a majority. I have denied that previously here in response to you, and I now deny it yet again. What I have said repeatedly is we should not imply in the lead what is manifestly false: that she got a majority. There are various ways to remove that falsity from the lead. One is to explicitly say neither candidate got a majority. Another is to say he got less than the plurality. Another is to follow the JQ Adams lead and the Benjamin Harrison lead, by not discussing the irrelevant popular vote (which might well have been different in 2016 if it had been a determinant of victory). Regardless, I do think it would be wise and useful (not essential) to briefly mention that neither candidate got a majority, if we are going to mention that she got more votes, which also has the benefit of indicating it was not a popular vote landslide. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We've been down the 'neither candidate got a majority of the votes,' many times before. You mentioned somewhere you would consult with @NeilN:, so I'm pinging him to see if he can offer any suggestions for this dilemma. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I get it: you wouldn't insist that "not a majority" (or "a plurality") be included in the article if we didn't mention the popular vote at all. But since we clearly are going to include it, you do insist propose it as wise and useful but not essential. Because of your (IMO incorrect) belief that if we even mention that he got a smaller share of the popular vote, people will automatically assume "she got a majority". Which would be true if there were only two people in the race. But it won't be enough to indicate (by saying "main opponent") that there were other people in the race, to take away the assumption that the person who got a larger share actually got a majority. It has to be explicit, lest some people jump to a wrong conclusion. And philosophically you do believe that if some people might infer an incorrect impression from a statement, that makes the statement false (or even "blatant POV"). So even though the article text already says neither candidate got a majority, that has to be specified in the lede also. OK, at least now I understand you. Now all you have to do is convince enough people that this all makes sense. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense to go through those gyrations to get to the simple fact that Donald J. Trump won the electoral college vote by 57% and lost the popular vote." That explains why he's president in one neat sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a false parity, since in one case a majority was won (electoral), in the other, not (popular). (Plus it's also already for a long time known in discussions that "losing" the popular vote is a misnomer [since it is not a race to be "won" or "lost"], so why do you keep beating that drum by continually suggesting that text??) --IHTS (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN says about me: "you do believe that if some people might infer an incorrect impression from a statement, that makes the statement false (or even 'blatant POV')." No, no, no. Speaking of "his opponent" who got more votes implies he had one opponent who got a majority. That's a false implication, and the only readers who would infer otherwise don't understand how to read plain English. I have had it up to here with my comments being misconstrued, and it apparently makes no difference how many times I try to explain it in a different way. So do what you so evidently want to do. Consider me scared away from the article, and driven insane by the talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:MelanieN, I also feel it is appropriate to clarify by saying "not a majority" if the lede says Clinton (or "main opponent") received more popular votes. It's important to this article because of the ongoing societal contention re election result "legitimacy". The incessant avoidance of simple & informative & appropriate clarifying language is what is POV, and in worse cases does imply the falsity that Clinton got a majority. p.s. Your "eggs/vegetarian" analogy is bogus reasoning. ("I like eggs" w/o other context has no connection re topic "vegetarianism", anymore than it has connection re liking/disliking anything else in the world, like hot climates or fast cars. So no clarification needed. But "received more popular votes" has direct connection to "a majority" or not, there are only two possibilities in the context of popular vote totals.) Your analogy fails but I'm not surprised SW jumps on it enthusiastically. (Thick POV.) --IHTS (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Because I was pinged, I'm going to respond (carefully) here and make a few general points:

• Wikipedia articles are written for English-speakers worldwide, not just Americans.
• Many functional democracies involve multiple parties.
• In these countries, one person winning the majority of the popular vote is rare. Where I live, you wouldn't hear "x won the majority of the popular vote" when they garnered <50% of the vote from quality news sources.
• You may want to look at newspapers or historical accounts of elections from other countries (or even the U.S.) to see what phrasings they use.

Again, these are general points - I don't know how useful they will be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Neil. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Quantitative RS data

The most mainstream RS do use the term "plurality".

• 80 results for plurality "donald trump" "electoral college" site:nytimes.com
• 20 results for plurality "donald trump" "electoral college" site:wsj.com
• 17 results for plurality "donald trump" "electoral college" site:usatoday.com

And the most analogous featured article -- Hillary Clinton -- also says plurality (in the lead). --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, please actually look at some of the articles, not just the fact that they include "Trump" and "plurality" in the same article. Taking the USA Today results: Of the 8 articles displayed by the link, seven are opinion pieces (i.e. not Reliable Sources), and the one news item is not about the presidential election and uses "plurality" in an entirely different context. WSJ is behind a paywall but of the snippets I can see, I don't see any that seem to say what we are talking about, i.e., "plurality of the popular vote in the 2016 election" - and many of them are pre-election so they definitely aren't. Bottom line, this search tells us nothing. Let's refine the search to look for actual news items that are actually about the popular vote outcome in the 2016 election.

• Searching for "plurality of the popular vote" and "Hillary Clinton" I found no RS articles using that phrase about this election in the first four pages of results. (Lots of Wikipedia articles - apparently Wikipedia loves that word - but Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source.)
• Searching for "plurality of the popular vote" and "Donald Trump" Same result: No RS articles using that phrase about this election in the first four pages of results.

You keep bringing up the Hillary Clinton article. WP:OSE. We don't know who decided that or why. Let's decide what we want to do at THIS article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. We have to decide what's best for this article. I think B4 settles it nicely. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

B4 won't fly. As i wrote above, the latest RfC concluded that there was no consensus to include any variant of "losing the popular vote". I think this horse should rest in peace and proposal B4 should be withdrawn. — JFG ^talk 18:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an election. One wins, one loses. The RS call it that. I don't see any prohibition to stating it in plain language. It seems to be the obscuring of the win/loss that is causing this sentence to be brought up for revision over and over. Plain English should settle the matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an election, indeed, won or lost by the electoral college. The nationwide popular vote is not an election. Those arguments were abundantly commented and settled in the RfC that you had called. — JFG ^talk 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

B4 settles the matter, imho. He won the electoral college, he lost the popular vote. This is a different RfC with better choices. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, we can't ignore Trump's loss of the popular vote. There was a huge amount of RS commentary about that fact, and one of Trump's notable lies at that time was that he had not lost the popular vote. He got pretty creative with multiple deceptive and factless theories about why he either didn't lose the popular vote, or why he did (millions of illegal votes for Clinton was one).

The lead must be concise, without unnecessary detail, so B4 very simply avoids a lot of controversial wordings and issues while mentioning the two aspects to the election which were most noted in RS. Your obsession with not connecting Trump with the word "lose" or "loss" is very Trumpian. He was raised to never lose and to never admit when he did lose. In his own mind he never loses. His myriad and constant losses and defeats are always someone else's fault. Roy Cohn even taught him to call every defeat a victory, and that's what he does. Well, Wikipedia is not Trump. We don't lie here. We're documenting that he won the election (IOW the electoral vote) while losing the popular vote, and that by a huge margin (which should be discussed in the body of the article). Trump hates that fact, but we don't care what he thinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: From the comments above: "If you can produce evidence that 'the word plurality is fairly understandable to most readers', kindly do so." ... "People shouldn't have to follow wikilinks in order to understand what an encyclopedia is saying." The data show that USAToday does sometimes use the word plurality in describing the election. The newspaper has the third-largest print circulation in the US; so it likely tries to use words that most of its readers can understand without following a link.

Also, most Wikipedia readers can understand the leads in most featured articles -- including, for example, the Hillary Clinton article. The term "plurality" is used there, with no wikilink. That doesn't mean we have to use it; it just means we can. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least one person didn't understand it. The edit that touched all this off [14] had the edit summary "Clearly, it is not correct that Trump didn't obtain a plurality of the popular vote. He did. He did not, however, obtain a majority of the popular vote, as one opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton obtained millions more votes by individual voters than he did." Clearly, this editor has no idea what "plurality" means. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree with MelanieN. Hillary beat Donald like a drum in the popular vote. But he did the same to her in the electoral college. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: True, but I'd have to call him a rather "unreliable" editor! Perhaps he thought the term meant "more than one vote" (singular)??? ... Given that this often becomes the most viewed article on Wikipedia, there's going to be at least one editor who fails to understand any given four-syllable word... As I keep pointing out, though, the Hillary Clinton article is a featured article, and there was evidently no consensus to remove the term plurality from the lead -- or even to wikilink it.

In any event, I doubt we're going to establish a consensus here without an RfC. I'd like to acknowledge, however, that you've had to spend some time correcting a couple of careless errors I made, and I do appreciate it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

He's a pretty reliable source to answer the question, "does everybody understand what "plurality" means?" 0;-D Reliable answer: NO! --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really, he just has his own definition that he thinks is better than the standard dictionary definition, per his user talk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This evening in the car I was trying to explain this dispute to my wife, an intelligent woman with 19+ years of formal education. She stopped me halfway through with, "Wait, what does plurality mean?" ~Awilley (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, you are so right. I've always failed at parsing those sentences because it is a very mixed and self-contradictory message. Avoiding the word "plurality" altogether saves lots of problems. He won the election while losing the popular vote. That's all the lead needs to say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: From the lead: "His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist..." Some readers would understand that term to mean "popular"; many others would have no idea what it's supposed to mean. (Actual definition: "Favoring the common people".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Couching contentious material in quotes

In perusing the article today I noticed that there are a lot of direct quotes from Donald Trump himself. While some in-line quotes are to be expected, we should not be using quotes as vehicles to insert contentious material that is not verifiable in secondary sources, or to put a positive or negative spin on events.

A couple relevant Wikipedia guidelines are:

• WP:Quotation: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject."
• MOS:QUOTE: "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement. Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)."

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about, along with suggested replacements.

Topic	What the article currently says (quote)	Suggested replacement	Notes
Involuntarily enrolled in a military boarding school	At age 13, Trump's parents enrolled him in the New York Military Academy, after discovering Donald made frequent trips into Manhattan without permission. "I was a wise guy, and they wanted to get me in line," Trump said. "Thinking back, it was a very positive influence."	At age 13, Trump's parents enrolled him in the New York Military Academy, after discovering Donald made frequent trips into Manhattan without permission.	Could also be paraphrased to, "Trump later said he thought it was a positive influence."
Loan of $1M	Trump has said that he began his career with "a small loan of one million dollars" from his father (which "isn't very much compared to what I've built"), and paid back that loan with interest.	Trump has said that he began his business career with a loan of $1 million dollars from his father.	If the $1M figure is also supported in reliable sources, we can put it in Wikipedia's voice.
Renovation of the Plaza Hotel	The hotel was built in 1907, and Trump called it "the ultimate work of art", spending $50 million on its restoration.	The hotel, built in 1907, cost $50 million to restore.	Also makes it less confusing, since Trump certainly didn't build the hotel in 1907
On his business bankruptcies	The six bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York: [...]. Trump said, "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."	The six bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York: [...].	No need for the "fantastic deal" spin, and there are better descriptions of how bankruptcy works.
The Hollywood Access tape controversy	On the tape, Trump is heard bragging to the show's then-cohost Billy Bush about forcibly kissing and groping women. "I just start kissing them," he says, "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy."	On the tape, Trump is heard bragging in vulgar terms about forcibly kissing and groping women.	It's enough to say that it's vulgar without giving the whole quote. (Billy Bush would be moved into the preceding sentence.)

I would like to implement these and possibly other similar changes int the article, but wanted to get some feedback first to avoid any edit skirmishes. (But please let's not turn this into another RfC!) ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. btw,"involuntarily enrolled in a military boarding school," I love that. Can we put that in the article? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley:, MelanieN and BullRangifer make good points about the last two. Also, now I'm thinking about it, I think the first quote should stay as is. Trump is revealing he knew he was a handful. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Has any child ever voluntarily enrolled in a military boarding school? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also to me. (In most cases, the direct quotation could be included as a ref quote.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am OK with the first three changes, but I think the Trump quotes should be retained in the last two. His attitude toward bankruptcy is entirely relevant. And what he said on the tape has been widely reported and belongs here so that people can understand what the issue was all about. Censoring it to merely "vulgar" does a disservice to our readers IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Melanie on this one. the last two quotes are necessary. They give us a good description of his thinking, and readers deserve to get that. Otherwise those are good edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, the only quote that I put in was "The hotel was built in 1907, and Trump called it 'the ultimate work of art', spending $50 million on its restoration." The point was that he invested so much money in restoration largely because he viewed it as the ultimate work of art. You can check the cited sources (footnotes 128 and 129) about that, so I support keeping the quote or modifying the paraphrase. I was not aware this was contentious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)