Talk:Donald Trump

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

POV lead.

The lead does not come close to being a summary of the article and the controversial aspects of this individual. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I, for one, think there should be sentence about Trump's 2011 birther campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understand, Trump called for release of the certificate, it was released two days later, and that was that. While left-wing blogs have certainly made a huge thing of it, I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's birther campaign lasted for 6 weeks, it was hugely covered by the mainstream media to the point where it received non-stop attention on cable news networks, and has been regularly cited since then as laying the groundwork for his 2016 campaign. Here's an example. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And here and here are examples of stories about media attention given to Trump's birther campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it's had the long-term notability to make it ledeworthy, and it's not a significant part of his career or his campaign.CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The last two links are examples that are both from April 2011. The first link to the NY Times (dated July 3, 2016) may be worth including as a reference in this Wikipedia article, if it's not already there, but it explains that the controversy was tightly confined in time in March and April 2011: "Then, almost as quickly as it began, the controversy subsided. And several weeks later, Mr. Trump decided not to seek the Republican nomination. Though he continued to do well in polls, he seemed to be more focused on his reality television pursuits. Now, Mr. Trump almost assiduously refuses to discuss the topic, which, according to several people close to him, was always more about political performance art than ideology. 'I don’t talk about that anymore,' Mr. Trump told the MSNBC host Chris Matthews after a Republican debate last year." I think this was a pretty discrete episode that has not had much lasting impact. Below, I quote what this BLP currently says about it, and would be interested to know whether that seems okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if we're looking to trim stuff from the lead, I think the entire 4th paragraph can be cut (about delegates and all that). It's highly procedural and yesterday's news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I shortened it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think all of Dr. Fleischman recommendations would help make it less POV-pushing, but I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

References

User:DrFleischman, as I understand your position about the tag atop the article, you agree that it's overkill. Indeed any use it has had has already been served. I hope that all of us editors don't get into a lengthy dispute about tagging. As to your concerns about the birther stuff, I think the place to start is the body of the BLP; do you feel that the following info from the body of the BLP is a fair description, and if not then how would you modify it?

“ In April 2011, Trump waded into the controversy about President Barack Obama's proof of eligibility as a natural born citizen: "His grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth, okay?"[265][266][267] Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case.[266][268][269] Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records,[270] plus release of a long form birth certificate.[271][272] Two days later, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form.[273] Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role.[274] When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".[275][276] ”

User:Gouncbeatduke says about the article, "I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored". Well, the lead does not include any references, so the tag should apparently be moved from the top to whatever section Gouncbeatduke thinks those references belong. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead currently seems to do that. Getting to the list of references that Gouncbeatduke wants inserted, the list is puzzling. Consider the first two:

• King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
• Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.

We already say: "Many legal experts were critical of Trump's attacks on Curiel, often viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.

References

I think that's more than adequate, and I don't see why to add the proposed King and Steinhauer references, which would be overkill. Gouncbeatduke's next suggested reference is this:

• Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.

This is an opinion piece. I strongly feel that a BLP like this needs facts much more than it needs opinions. I'm not trying to cram this BLP full of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity opinions, and that's a good thing, right? Skipping to Gouncbeatduke's suggested references regarding a Star of David:

• Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
• Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.

I think this would best go (if anywhere) into the Trump campaign article, but not this one. This kerfuffle had no staying power. All the news reports about it were confined to a single week, and we haven't heard any more about it since then. For good reason! According to Politifact, "Based on the evidence available, it seems unlikely that the Trump campaign intended to put out a Star of David image. In fact, the campaign moved to replace the star with a circle when the image gained attention." So, Gouncbeatduke's long list of references really have nothing to do with the lead (because the lead doesn't include any footnotes at all), and even in the body of the BLP these references would be very inappropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, it is clear to anyone editing this article that you are pro-Trump (which is fine), but the fact of the matter is that there has not been a presidential candidate (in my adult life) that has stated as many controversial statements as Trump has. This needs to be reflected in the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell recently said that the voter has a choice between russian roulette (with Trump) versus suicide (with Clinton). Suffice it to say that I think Sowell is a very wise man. The lead says, "His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." Obviously that should remain, and I think it addresses your point at least partly. He does say a lot of things like that, but each individual one seems to be forgotten when the next one causes another stir, and in each case a lot of non-neutral media makes each controversial comment more controversial. I think we can discuss this phenomenon and maybe have the article address it more, but I don't think the lead is inaccurately summarizing the body of the article. We're only supposed to cover stuff that has staying power per WP:Recentism, and we do have a whole subsection titled "comments about fringe theories". Anyway, I do not intend to remove the POV tag in the 2016 election section right now, only the one at the top of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, this thread was opened to talk about the lead, so let's keep it to that subject. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the lead is lacking in some departments and I support keeping the {{pov-lead}} tag until this issues are resolved. I'd like to hear from Cwobeel what their specific concerns are. Here are my responses on specific issues. Feel free to interlineate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• birtherism: Trump may have only hyped up Obama's birth certificate for 6 weeks, but the significance of his birtherism goes way beyond those 6 weeks, as demonstrated by the WaPo article (and many others). Trump's birtherism has been cited regularly by the news media ever since 2011. Completely excluding it from the lead section reads as POV in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I count fourteen (14) footnotes in the birther material that's in the article now, none of which is WaPo. I don't see how we can discuss putting birther stuff in the lead until we have some consensus that it's taken care of in the body of the article. This is required by MOS:LEAD. The body of the article does not currently indicate much long-term significance, and the mentions about it in the media since 2011 have almost always been in passing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• racism: There has certainly been much written by Trump's racism but I'm not aware of any consensus among reliable sources that we can cite in any sort of concise way. We already say many of his statements are controversial, and perhaps that's enough? As a practical matter I highly doubt we'll ever gain consensus to put anything about racism in the lead section so honestly I'm inclined not to perpetuate the flamefest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• lies: I think a sentence may be warranted on Trump's dishonesty, which has received a tremendous amount of media coverage. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess the most recent episode was "Hillary founded ISIS". He claims it was sarcasm. I think any sane person realizes he wasn't saying that Hillary convened a bunch of terrorists and urged them to start killing people. Again, this has to be fleshed out in the article body before it could possibly go in the lead. This is required by MOS:LEAD. If the lead accurately summarizes what's in the article body right now, then there's no reason to discuss the lead right now. Lies about Trump have also occurred, BTW, but maybe that's too tangential for this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, re: "Hillary founded ISIS", His sarcasm seems to elude many observers including his running mate. He made the statement on Wednesday, defended it as spoken to Hugh Hewitt and didn't walk it back to sarcasm until Friday

Gaas99 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaas, your first link, to politicususa, is very unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, they don't have a Wikipedia article, and even if they did, their own self-description disqualifies them from being a WP:RS for our purposes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the ref with a more persuasive one -- same info.Gaas99 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I'm not aware of any requirement that content can't be added to the lead section unless it's also covered in the body. If that were the case we'd be slashing a good deal of the lead section content across the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." There's even a special tag to put in the lead when it's not supported by the article body.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The point of the sentence, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article," is to exclude the very type of argument you're making here, which is to keep a subject out of the lead section until it has been covered in the body (or in the case of the birther stuff, to keep it in the lead section until we have consensus that our coverage in the body is deep enough). The lead can improved and then the body can be harmonized with it later. I personally am not particularly interested in the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD is very clear that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. If you don't care what's in the body and only care about putting stuff in the lead, then that directly contradicts MOS:LEAD, in my opinion. Nothing can be excluded from the lead provided that it summarizes what's in the body of the article. Even putting aside MOS:LEAD, as a matter of common sense, shouldn't we first boil down the reliable sources to something that can fit into the body of the article, before boiling it down further to obtain something for the lead? Instead, I can't even get you to say whether the body of the article adequately covers the issue. You really think we should put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article? That strikes me as very bad editing, and I hope you don't support it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Echoing DrFleischman: there is absolutely nothing in MOS:LEAD that justifies removing material solely because it's not contained in the body of the article. Yes, the lead and body should be harmonized, but there is no prescription for which should be edited first. In fact, as DrFleischman points out, the guideline specifically states that information should not be removed from the lead in these situations. It is completely legitimate to first work material into the lead, and then flesh it out in the body of the article, and you are badly misrepresenting the guideline, as well as fellow editors' positions.

Anythingyouwant, you've now made this specious argument repeatedly to justify removing well-sourced, relevant material from the lead. (A more cynical person than I might also note that you tend to employ this misrepresentation only to remove material which reflects less-than-positively on Trump). Since you've repeatedly cited MOS:LEAD, a reasonable person would assume that you've actually read it. We are thus left with the question of why you're not only misrepresenting the guideline, but using it in a way that the guideline itself specifically warns against. That's a concerning behavior, but outside the scope of this talkpage. For now, please stop making this argument. It would be tiresome to have to continually correct your misrepresentation of the guideline, although it is a good reminder that such assertions about policy should always be verified given your track record. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No MastCell, I will not stop making the good faith argument that we should not put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article, unless and until someone convinces me that I'm mistaken. If you are confident that I am mistaken, then you should have no trouble rallying a consensus in your favor, instead of trying to shut me up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's another deliberate misrepresentation: I don't see anyone advocating the inclusion of unsourced material in the lead. And you've already been shown the portion of the guideline which explicitly OKs adding material to the lead first, and then developing it in the body. This is not good-faith editing on your part. If you persist in this disruptive and dishonest behavior, then I will request that the discretionary sanctions covering this article be invoked, so that the rest of the editors here can get on with their work. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been an active editor at this article this summer, User:MastCell. Thankfully, this means I can view your comments as those of a fellow editor, and no more. If Dr. Fleischman is not proposing to put facts into the lead without footnotes and without support in the article body, then he can say so and can clarify what he's proposing. He's already said quite clearly that he doesn't care what's in the article body on this subject, and of course this lead excludes all footnotes. I am an honest man, MastCell. For over nine years at multiple articles and other venues, you have made bogus arguments to the contrary. I suggest you stop before you embarrass yourself further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As explained at user talk of User:NeilN, I am de-watchlisting this article immediately. I have no interest in being railroaded, or in being party to an article that is subject to unlimited POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness. This isn't the first time Anythingyouwant has blatantly misinterpreted guidelines and other editors' comments to push their editing agenda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that comment was inappropriate. I suggest you strike it - or delete it together with my response. Please remember to discuss article content, not personalities, and remember that this page is under Discretionary Sanctions, which includes the requirement to abide by "expected standards of behaviour". --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

MastCell's assertions are not supported by Template:Citation needed lead:

This template is specifically intended to challenge a fact in the lead section of an already well-sourced article, where that lead is clearly intended to function as a summary of the content, but the fact tagged does not appear in the body.

BLPs

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.

Such facts should be removed per BLP. If reinstated, I propose that they could briefly be tagged [not verified in body] to alert other editors and forestall edit-warring. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're making a mess by trying to get around MOS:LEAD. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag unsourced items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does not mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").

I'm not sure why people are working so hard to get around the relatively straightforward guidance in MOS:LEAD. Separately, no interpretation of the template documentation can excuse Anythingyouwant's misrepresentation of MOS:LEAD, but that is a behavioral issue for another venue. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of deliberately lying, User:MastCell? This is the fourth time in the last week that you have accused me at this page of "misrepresentation", and that's what the word means.[2] How many more times can I expect this from you at this article talk page? If such serious and insulting attacks are "for another venue" then why do you insist on using this venue again and again and again and again? Editors often interpret policy and guidelines somewhat differently, and I am happy to discuss this particular one, and revise my views about it as I already have. At first, I discussed the policy here from memory at the explicit suggestion of an administrator (User:NeilN), and then I went and checked it to see if I got it wrong, and I then quoted the pertinent part at length so everyone can read it.[3] Editors can edit the lead, but then if it is not supported by the body of the article the two must be harmonized so the lead summarizes the body; but no contentious material can be put into the lead, without support in the article body, if that material is unsourced. This lead does not include footnotes, so any contentious material put into this lead without support in the body fails WP:BLP. If you disagree with my understanding of policy, please feel free to explain why you think I'm mistaken, and please try to do so without saying yet again that I'm a goddamned liar. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Colleagues: {{citation needed lead}} is one of the 55 inline "verifiability & sources" tags. For a helpful list with usage notes, see WP:Template messages - Cleanup, § Verifiability and sources, §§ Inline with article text. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Observations

1. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." This sentiment is repeated throughout MOS:LEAD. There must be consensus that whatever is added to the lead, is important enough to justify its place there.
2. If content in the lead is not found in the body then the lead content must have acceptable inline cites.
3. Standard facts in the lead do not have to be repeated in the body but most other things should appear with more details or at least the wording of such details should be actively discussed on the talk page with an eye to synchronizing the lead and body sooner than later.
4. Different editors place different emphasis on different parts of guidelines. Doing so is not deliberate misrepresentation. It may be an incorrect representation or interpretation but the words chosen above are not the best.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE is also pertinent. Among other things, it says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." There are no footnotes in the lead of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, et cetera. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

POV lead (redux)

The above thread seems to have petered out without much substantive discussion. Does anyone have any ideas of specific ways the lead section can be improved? I've suggested the addition of a sentence each on birtherism and dishonesty. Any additional thoughts on those? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

First let's put in some more details about Trump Organization's activities. Over the course of Trump's life, most of his time, thoughts, and money have been invested in his company (not in his campaigns). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I support that effort, but I don't think the addition of some content should hold up the addition of unrelated content. Unless there are objections I'll take a stab at a couple of sentences. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of racism

Hatted until an admin stops by and decides how to better handle this as an apparent BLP vio

Seriously, there are an unlimited amount of good, useable sources that Donald Trump is a racist, but still this Wikipedia-articel ignores that. Why? Are so many Wikipedia-editors Trump-fans? --Jensbest (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC) The first two hits in those search results are labeled commentary and opinion. If you can find sources that are not commentary and opinion, feel free to list them here. The lead already says he wants to stop illegal immigration, and also stop legal immigration from countries with a history of terrorism, so readers are free to infer from that that Trump is racist, fascist, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC) This is getting tedious. I have added "allegedly" because the subhead is not a direct quote. It's also not true. Ask Dr Ben Carson. I would suggest closing this topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) I agree. While Trump's comments may appear to be racism to some, numerous others, including Carson, Cain and a significant share of the U.S. population, his comments are anything but racism. It is POV to call him a racist in any way. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Racism isn't an opinion, it is a crime. Trump is a racist. Do he need to become an US-american Hitler first to make him a wikipedia-proved racist? Mentioning people like Carson and Cain to prove that Trump isn't a racist, makes me worry about the level of argumentation on enWP. --Jensbest (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) One can't exactly say he "IS" a racist. Nor can one really use Ben Carson as a reliable source. However, one can reference racially biased things he has said or done, of which there are a good number. Centerone (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Why can't we use Ben Carson as a reliable source? we should trust him, he is a doctor, also he stabbed someone before..--Stemoc 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC) The Adolf Hitler article does not say that he was a racist. That's because of the "Contentious labels" guideline. Furthermore we do not have sources that meet "Reliable sources" policy and it also violates "Biographies of living persons" policy. However, the policy and guidelines are applied even-handedly. TFD (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Well, if the enWP really doesn't state that Hitler was a racist then you obviously missed the point what Hitler did and your "Contentious labels"-thing is just far from what's called reality. By the way, anti-semitism is nothing else but one form of racism. So when somebody plan to, talk about and then really kill millions of jews and other ethnic or religious groups (eg. Romani people, check Porajmos) than he is a racist. By not stating this, enWP ignores reality. Being blind for history makes you repeating it. First as a tragedy, then as a farce. --Jensbest (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC) I've added "allegedly" back to the subhead. It's not a direct quote, so we need to say allegedly, if we have to mention this topic at all. Please don't remove it. The same epithet could apply to Hillary because of this. Again, I suggest closing this topic because Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Enough Several of the comments in this thread are violating BLP guidelines. I suggest nuking it altogether. I have striken one comment that is a blatent violation and changed the header. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC) I'm from Germany. Because of our history I know very well how racism and faschism starts. It doesn't start with somebody who openly admits that he is a racist, but with somebody who makes big promises, gives easy answers, starts scapegoating several ethnic, religious or racial groups and is then elected. The USA is running in a trap. Even your great talkshow comedians are running out of ideas what to say about the very obvious signs given by Trump. But sure, don't be bold and write what many reliable sources already stated -that this Mr. Trump is a racial and faschistic undertones which feeds a more and more immoral crowd. Neutrality doesn't mean that you not allowed to tell when somebody is a racist. In fact by not doing it you are no more neutral. --Jensbest (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Morgen, Jensbest. To clarify, the issue here is something like what lawyers call "admissibility" in a courtroom. Is the accusation of racism admissible under Wikipedia rules and guidelines? Nbauman (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC) For the benefit of any admin who reviews this, I have discussed this issue before in Talk, now archived here NYT: Is Donald Trump a Racist? To repeat my argument then: Kristoff is a WP:RS. Op-Eds can be included here. According to WP:BIASED, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." There is an enormous volume of discussion in WP:RS accusing Trump of being a racist. That volume gives it WP:WEIGHT. Another contentious term is WP:TERRORIST. The Hamas article quotes WP:RS that call Hamas terrorists, with a WP:NPOV discussion. I think that's the right way to do it, which follows WP guidelines. We should treat Trump and racism the same way. Here are the accusations of racism, and here are his defenses. There's another way we could do it: Ignore the value judgment of "racist" and stick to the facts. Give the actions that Trump and his father have done that imply racism. We started to do that. Unfortunately, some editors kept deleting those facts. For example, we had a long and (I think) unjustified debate over whether to include the fact that the DOJ charged they were discriminating "against blacks," which made the section meaningless. Do you want to keep out the opinions and just stick to the facts? Then include the 'fact that the DOJ sent pairs of testers, who were matched black and white couples identical except for their race, and the Trump organization rejected applications from the black couples and then accepted applications from the white couples. Trump and his lawyer Roy Cohen claimed that they were merely rejecting black people because they were on welfare, not because they were black, but then why did they reject the testers? I think it's reasonable for Kristof, like many others, to say: Here we have a man who for more than four decades has been repeatedly associated with racial discrimination or bigoted comments about minorities, some of them made on television for all to see. While any one episode may be ambiguous, what emerges over more than four decades is a narrative arc, a consistent pattern — and I don’t see what else to call it but racism. And I think that this kind of comment is a WP:RS, which can be cited in Wikipedia under WP guidelines, including WP:BIASED. --Nbauman (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for clearing this subject. I added it in the article. --Jensbest (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) User:Jensbest, that didn't last long, did it? Under Wikipedia rules, the best way to get this in the article would be to get multiple WP:RS who say the same thing. Search Google for "trump racist" (without the quotes) and pick out the most reliable sources possible, as defined by WP:RS. I believe that magazines like Mother Jones and the Nation are WP:RS, but to avoid debates over whether they are WP:RS, try to pick sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Atlantic, etc. That can include both columns and certain blogs WP:NEWSBLOG, and it can also include people whose opinions were quoted in news stories. You can probably find stories and columns calling Trump a racist because of his discrimination against blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims, and you could even use a Google search for "trump racist blacks" etc. (Note that some sources use "African-American" instead of "black.") If you can get 3 or 4 unimpeachably reliable sources saying that Trump is a racist, then you've established its relevance and significance under WP:WEIGHT. We could insert the material, and if anybody deleted it, we would argue against the deletion in Talk, and we would have a good case documented in Talk that it belongs in the article, if/when admins come around to resolve disputes. --Nbauman (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) The Washington Examiner has made it easier for us. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/11-new-york-times-that-trump-was-a-racist/article/2596017 --Nbauman (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Talk Page Guidelines Why was my response deleted? We don't delete other people's comments on talkpages.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Jensbest, please do not delete other editors' comments in talk pages. That violates the talk page guidelines, specifically WP:TPO. --Nbauman (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More discussion of what we can and can't say about Donald Trump on this talk page

Leave this hatted. In the future, please consider formally informing new editors to this article/talk page making inflammatory statements of discretionary sanctions - {{subst:alert|ap}} ~~~~ It might get them to be more cautious and it makes it easier for admins to take action. --NeilN talk to me 00:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC) I think that would be threatening and intimidating, exactly the opposite of WP:DONTBITE. Since you're not an admin yourself, leave it to the admins to decide. There are huge numbers of WP:RSs calling Donald Trump a racist, and they back that claim up with objective, well-documented facts, such as the results of the DOJ's testers, and Trump's statements about Mexicans and Muslims. WP:BLP does not restrict us from citing those WP:RSs in talk (or in the article). I also think that your proposed policy would disproportionally intimidate critics of Trump. No one has sanctioned the editors who removed references to "black tenants" in the article. Your proposed sanctions would only apply to critics of Trump. I am leaving this comment for the benefit of any admins who would consider your proposal.--Nbauman (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Nbauman, note that I said "making inflammatory statements" in my suggestion. As this is purely voluntary, individual editors can decide whether to notify or not. Editors new to this area need to be aware that everyone is held to stricter standards here. "Critics of Trump" should not be editing this article. "Supporters of Trump" should not be editing this article. Editors who want to produce encyclopedic content consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be editing this article. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC) I don't know of any Wikipedia rules or guidelines that would discourage "Critics of Trump" or "Supporters of Trump" from editing this article, as long as they follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) And WP:BLP. And WP:NOTFORUM. Which, in that case, they won't have to worry about discretionary sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC) My personal opinion (which I actually formed yesterday reading all this) is that WP:NOTAFORUM has been an issue in this discussion several times over. I don't see how it is contributing to building the encyclopedia or this article at all and would love to see it archived. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC) NeilN: Thank you for your well-meant reply to Nbauman. Please rephrase your statement that "'Critics of Trump' should not be editing this article. 'Supporters of Trump' should not be editing this article." I understand what you're trying to get at here, but you communicated it very badly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC) I believe my meaning was clear. --NeilN talk to me 21:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC) NeilN: Clear to some, but not to Nbauman. What you were getting at is that critics or supporters should not be editing this article in their capacity as critics or supporters. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC) The word "inflammatory" does not appear in WP:BLP. "Inflammatory" doesn't have a clear, unambiguous meaning that everyone can agree on. You can say that a statement is "inflammatory," and I can disagree. Can you give me a definition of "inflammatory," that new editors could use to determine whether a statement is inflammatory or not? Is it inflammatory to quote Trump as saying that Mexicans are rapists? --Nbauman (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC) My two cents: in this context the best definition of inflammatory is subversive. It subverts Wikipedia to quote things that were never said. Trump only said that some Mexicans are rapists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC) In particular, some unlawful Mexican immigrants who were "pushed" into the US by the Mexican government on suspicion of being violent criminals (narcotraficantes or whatever) and were apprehended by border guards. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) No, I'm not going to give you a definition editors can wikilawyer around. Use WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NOTFORUM as guidelines. Stick closely to what sources say, don't post assertions like "x is a psychopath" or "x is racist", and you should be fine. --NeilN talk to me 23:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC) -User:NeilN, I realize that WP:ATA is an essay, not a guideline, but the following explains the problem with your answer. Just pointing at a policy or guideline WP:JUSTAPOLICY While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. ...Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. For the record, simply citing "WP:BLP. And WP:NOTFORUM." is just pointing to a policy or guideline without explaining how it applies to the discussion at hand. You say, "Stick closely to what sources say, don't post assertions like ... 'x is racist', and you should be fine." You're saying that we're not allowed to call someone a racist, even if WP:RS call him a racist, and the individual calls himself a racist, like George Lincoln Rockwell. I and others are sticking closely to what the WP:RS say. Many WP:RS say of Trump, as Kristof does, "I don’t see what else to call it but racism." You don't want us to use that quote, and you're not giving us any reason for using that quote, other than just pointing to WP:BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NOTFORUM without specifying how it applies. I believe the Kristof quote belongs in the article, and you haven't given us any reason based on WP policies and guidelines why it doesn't belong. --Nbauman (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC) There is a difference between using racism as an appeal to racists, and being a racist oneself. Do we know that George Wallace was personally a racist – or just that he used racist rhetoric to appeal to the flaws of others to forward his goals? I think it is acceptable under WP guidelines to carefully show RS which suggest that Trump is using racism as a tool. I don’t think WP should call him a racist, no matter the evidence, as it assumes we can look into the mind of another. Just avoid the noun. Objective3000 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) If you can't tell the difference between "This [high quality source] covers how Trump is seen as a racist by [whoever]. I propose [whatever]." and "Trump is a racist! This needs to go in the article." then perhaps you should not be editing BLPs. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." --NeilN talk to me 00:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC) So you're saying that if I wrote, "This high quality source, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, says of Trump, 'I don’t see what else to call it but racism,' and I propose we include it in the article," you would have no objection. --Nbauman (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) If the Kristof piece is an opinion piece rather than news, then it may be significant to include if his statement has been reported as news by any reliable source at all. Otherwise, I cannot see any more justification for including it in this article than a typical unreported statement by Linbaugh or Hannity or Ivanka that Donald hasn't got a racist bone in his body. And if the Kristof quote has been reported as news, we will have to explore whether contrary opinions have been reported as news so that they might be included proportionately to the corresponding coverage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Anythingyouwant, just so you're aware, what Kristof writes in the NYTimes carries substantially more weight than something Limbaugh says on his talk show. The reliability of sources matters on WP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Nbauman, that's correct. --NeilN talk to me 03:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So does anybody object to inserting the text, "Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, says of Trump, 'I don’t see what else to call it but racism,'" in the article, in the discussion of the DOJ charges, which Kristof was examining? Do we have consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant, the Kristof column got massive coverage. You can do a Google search for "trump racist kristof" and pick out the WP:RSs. I couldn't find any WP:RS defending Trump, but it would be a good addition.

Incidentally, in doing that search, I found this article in the Washington Examiner, which does a lot of our work for us:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/11-new-york-times-that-trump-was-a-racist/article/2596017

11 New York Times that Trump was a 'racist'

By Eddie Scarry

Washington Examiner

7/10/16

It seems clear that many WP:RSs have called Trump a "racist" specifically. For Wikipedia, we don't look for truth, just reliable sources. It would be nice to have other sources besides the NYT, but this should be enough to justify including it in the article.

(BTW, you can search individual newspapers with a Google search such as "site:washingtonpost.com trump racist" You can even find defenses of Trump, like "Donald Trump: ‘I am the least racist person’").--Nbauman (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nbauman, I oppose adding the column to the Donald Trump BLP per WP:BALASPS policy as clarified by the WP:10YT essay (column not expected to appear relevant in 2026). I would support adding the column to the Nicholas Kristof BLP but only if you find a high-quality high-circulation mainstream source article that is primarily about the column. If the article isn't primarily about this particular column, you can't cite it to support including this column. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. We don't make controversial, POV proclamations about anybody in BLPs no matter how many alleged reliable sources state those controversial, POV proclamations are true. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I ought to clarify the WP:NPOV policy as I understand it, Winkelvi. The content in an article is supposed to represent fairly and proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources on the subject. Sometimes the reputable sources contradict each other, and if the two opposing points of view have more-or-less equal prominence in the "body of reliable sources on the subject" (WP:BALASPS), we're actually supposed to describe both points of view. (See WP:BALANCE.) In which case,

1 "upspin" POV edit + 1 "downspin" POV edit ~ NPOV.

At least, that's how I've been interpreting the policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jensbest, in your reply to me above, you wrote, "if the enWP really doesn't state that Hitler was a racist then you obviously missed the point what Hitler did and your "Contentious labels"-thing is just far from what's called reality." The problem is that we must follow Wikipedia guidelines in writing articles and if you do not like the guidelines, you should get them changed before posting your edit recommendations here. TFD (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me put in easy words: If Wikipedia guidelines prohibit that the fact that Adolf Hitler was a rascist is mentioned in the enzyclopedic article than Wikipedia has a big problem with telling the facts about reality. This outraging sticking to questionable "Contentious labels"-rules just proves again the limitation Wikipedia has when it comes to display reality especially when it comes to political articles.

Same for the ongoing senseless meta-discussion around the clearly in reliable sources documented information about the racist character of Donald Trump. It is proven by several experts (in fields like psychology, political science and sociology) that the behaviour in several occasions and several statements of Donald Trump over the years are clearly of a rascist character. Behaviour and statements - that's how a person expresses himself, defines himself. Racist behaviour, rascist statements = rascist character. Everybody who ignores to acknowledge this, isn't neutral anymore, because then he helps Trump to cover up a clearly proven character element. So, to sum it up: A Wikipedia-article not mentioning the widely analysed and proven by reliable source rascist character of Donald Trump is a non-neutral Pro-Trump article. --Jensbest (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jensbest, I am not arguing whether Wikipedia guidelines or right or wrong. The place to argue that is on the guideline pages. If you do not like the rules, get them changed. In the meantime, respect editors who follow guidelines. TFD (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are very clear that well-sourced, relevant material—even if negative—is appropriate for inclusion in BLPs (see WP:WELLKNOWN). It's a fact that numerous reliable sources have commented on the apparently racist nature of Trump's rhetoric. There is a brief list of some such sources here, in the Trump campaign article. (There are many other such reliable sources; this list is not exhaustive but does demonstrate that the concern over racism is well-documented in such sources). Whether such concerns belong in this article, or only in the Presidential campaign article, is up to other editors. MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see experienced editors (including at least one admin who's stopped by here more than once) having difficulty regarding BLP policy. But back to what's appropriate and what isn't: putting anything about Trump being racist in the article in Wiki-voice is inappropriate and against BLP policy. Adding something that quotes others saying Trump is racist isn't. See the difference? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that Dervorguilla and MastCell's views are more in line with what WP:BLP and WP:NPV actually say. Experience shouldn't really matter, but among the three of us we have over 60,000 edits. That said, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this is one of those exceptional claims; and, are there no reliable sources out there that say that Trump isn't racist? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, can we please put together a list of reliable sources that say that Trump is racist, or say that he isn't? I see several mentions of the fact that such sources exist, but I don't think anyone has listed them out. And please only include reliable fact-checked sources, not individuals' personal opinions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, but an exception to the "reliable sources only" rule should be that we allow at least one comment from Trump himself, or his family of defenders, denying it. The "least racist person in the world" quote would be good for that, but probably not the whole detailed defense describing his black friends and his Jewish daughter and so on. And IMO "reliable sources" could include the widely reported comment from Ryan (but not from Democrats or their supporters, or from anti-Trump Republicans). BTW I haven't contributed to this thread much, but my opinion is that Trump is NOT personally racist, and certainly not anti-Semitic; he just talks that way on the campaign trail. So anything that we say here should be along the lines that reliable sources say he makes racist comments or racist appeals - not that he is a racist. In other words, "what Winkelvi said." --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if the reliable sources say Trump is racist (or makes racist comments or appeals, or whatever the sources say), then Trump's position on that is fine. I would object to Paul Ryan's comment being included to the exclusion of the multitude of other equally notable people who've weighed in on the subject. But that's a secondary issue to what the reliable sources say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

We should never say outright, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump is a racist or that what he says is racist. Using reliable sources, we should say something along the lines of "Some commentators have stated that Trump uses racist appeals" (something similar to that). What some people consider blatant racism, others may see as not racist at all, I have observed, so we should be careful with this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Rascism isn't an opinion, it is a crime. Therefore not calling a rascist (recognized as one by several experts) "a racist" isn't neutral, but it is supporting the racist by not calling him what he is. If you don't call a rascist a rascist because of politeness or similiar reasons, the rascist will be encourage to go further and further and further. Of course nearly every rascist will deny to be a rascist – until he has the power to translate his rascist remarks into action (e.g. when elected president of the US). --Jensbest (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Racism is NOT a crime. Racism is a thought, a feeling of hating other races - and we do not have thought police in this country. Carrying out criminal actions (ranging from discrimination to murder) motivated by racism IS a crime. If a person hates other races, but does not take any action based on those feelings, they may be despicable but they are not criminals. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I will not comment further on such aquestionable statement. --Jensbest (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies here. We are NOT going to call someone a racist (especially someone as controversial as Trump) in Wikipedia's voice. My preceding comment still stands. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you mixing up being neutral and ignoring reality. Ignoring the proven (by behaviour and statements) and often documented by reliable sources and experts fact that Donald Trump is racist ISN'T neutral, it is pro-Trump. Ignoring what a lot of reasonable observers state again and again, ISN'T neutral, it is ignorant. A murderer is a murderer, find guilty by evidence, no matter how often he negates it. A racist is a racist, convicted by evidence (his language, his political aims, his behaviour towards certain ethnic groups and how he wants deny them basic human rights), no matter how often he negates it. As also mentioned by many experts in the field Donald Trump has many psychological defects. So maybe his racism can be explained by his paranoia, his narcissism and his histrionic personality disorder [4]. But for naming it in the article it doesn't matter if Trumps racism is caused by illness or by free will, because the affect of having him talking to people in that way causes the same damages either way. So it is NOT neutral keeping the mentioning of Trump's racism out of the article, it is ignoring the reality and therefore is clear not NPOV, but just plain Pro-Trump. --Jensbest (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jens, if you truly wish to have material about Trump's racism added to the article then the way to help in that effort is to find some reliable sources and put them in the subsection below. And please keep the aggressive rhetoric to a minimum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It is very easy to find massive material about the racism of Donald Trump (e.g. the list of NYTimes articles you mentioned above). Logical argumentation based on respecting basic human rights is "agressive" in the world of enWP? Interesting. I'm not sure that it is my job to correct this article. If I'm the only one who thinks that massive data in reliable sources (which I read over the last months) should be used to show the clear racism of Donald Trump than maybe the english Wikipedia isn't ready to write this facts about Trump. Why should I risk to be blocked, because a lot of Trümp supporters here trying to argue with me about every detail just to keep the basic information out of the article? --Jensbest (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jensbest says that racism itself can (in one sense) be "a crime". His interpretation is supported by Black's Law Dictionary.

"racism. 1. The belief that some races are inherently superior to other races. 2. Unfair treatment of people, often including violence against them, because they belong to a different race from one’s own. — racist, adj. & n."

As Lunsford points out in "Fallacies of Argument: Equivocation",

"Many public figures are fond of parsing their words carefully so that no certain meaning emerges... Critics of the Bush administration said its many attempts to deny that ‘torture’ was being used ... amounted to a long series of equivocations."

So we can't just say that the Trump campaign denied Trump is a racist, or that A, B, C, and D claimed he is.

But we could say that A and B claimed he's a racist in sense 1; C claimed he's a racist in sense 2; D claimed he, Clinton, and Johnson are all racist in some sense in that they're all part of Euro-American society; and Trump himself denied he's a racist because (1) he questions the scientific validity of "race" as a concept or (2) unlike Clinton and Johnson, he groups people by wealth, not physiognomy.

See, for example, § Early career: "He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks ... rather than merely screening out people based on low income as the Trumps stated."

Or see O'Harrow quote: "Civil rights groups ... viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But ... 'they were big names.'"

Question: How many sources say that Trump is more racist or less racist than Clinton or Johnson? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems there's a lot of hot air here by those who say they want something included about racism. If you want something added, please provide reliable sources below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "hot air", it is a discussion why widely and easy to find reliable sources about the fact that Trump is a racist are not already included in this article. It is certainly NOT because reliable sources are difficult to find. In fact they are very easy to find. This article helps to ignore the reality about Trump and many editors taking care that it stays that way. Why should a rational editor, not from the USA and observing this weird development, risk to be blocked by getting involved with well-trained editors who taking care that all real info about Trump are keep out of the article? If the US-american editor-community isn't able to prevent such propaganda-articles in the first place, than that is something what should worry many people inside and outside Wikipedia. --Jensbest (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you here to improve the article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but not sentence by sentence. The whole article ignores well-known problems about Trump as they can easily be found in reliable sources (e.g. racist remarks & behaviour, narcissistic nature of Trumps behaviour and many more). So only adding one little sentence and even discussing this one little change for weeks won't make this a good article which helps to show some real aspects about the person Donald Trump. This article (at least the political parts of it) needs a heavy re-write. I'm here to discuss this greater problem of this article, to improve it in a more advanced way by discuss the problems in the structure to find a common ground with the more reasonable editors at hand to change the arcticle. But what I experience is that even a discussion about improving this article when it comes to reliable sources giving informations about the racist and narcissistic nature of Donald Trumps political life is tried to be suppressed by threatening me with "administrative action" (interesting way to silence people who put the finger on the bias problem). That draws a bad picture of how Wikipedia-article getting politically biased not by single editors, but by the systemic unrealistic understanding of "wannabe neutral". For political and journalistic observers this paints an interesting picture and questions are rising how aware Wikipedia editors are about the impact a biased article has on the public when it is read on an average of 60.000times/day and peaking often up to 500.000times/day. So, ya, I'm here to improve the article and therefore I'm still hoping for a reasonable debate, but I have more and more the impression that this isn't about to happen. Anyway, this whole thread (and some of the above) until now already gives a lot of material for outside observers to see how the rules of the Wikipedia can be used to keep an article biased. A very disturbing observation I must say. --Jensbest (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Jens, the problem for me at least is one of verifiability. It may be obvious to millions of people that Trump is this or that but unless it's expressly stated by reliable sources in their own voice, we can't say that. And I'm not aware of any such reliable sources. They could be out there, but I haven't found them. If you want to build consensus for real, systemic change, you have to do a little more than simply say, "it's obvious...it's obvious...it's obvious." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Website

VR, your recent edit summary [5] states, "his Muslim ban is still on his website." --- I just checked Trump's website, here, and it doesn't say anything about Muslims. Please self-revert your edits. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The added source (published yesterday) verifies it:
"Trump's unprecedented call in December 2015 "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" is still listed on his campaign website, and he has yet to personally denounce the controversial proposal."
So it must be somewhere unless they've just removed it today.--TMCk (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is all over his website: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].

Thanks, didn't see those. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'll put it back in.VR _talk 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Various business connections

"Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia"

I am not a fan of Donald Trump but really, let's stop pretending Wikipedia is unbiased. --Allen Nozick (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Table of Contents you'll find a section titled "Alleged links to organized crime". Here's a link to that section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The section is sourced, and includes the fair assessment that he was never charged with any crime and that it was pretty much necessary for any businessperson of that time to do business with mob figures. Looks balanced and NPOV to me. "The Mafia's candidate" - those are your words, not Wikipedia's. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this section is a BLP violation and should be removed per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it. Hillary is from Chicago; there could be similar fanciful ideas on her talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it should be included or not -- but it's detailed with cites, not fanciful; and what does the fact that Clinton spent her childhood in Chicago have to do with this? Objective3000 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000--Zigzig20s's comment with zero basis is inappropriate and itself a borderline BLP violation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Neither candidate is "the Mafia's candidate". You know that's what I meant. We need to stop with the smears here and focus on their policies, please. The election is a serious matter.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I re-read your comment and saw it in a more generous light. Sorry about that. The broader point is that there are reliable sources discussing alleged ties between Trump and organized crime. I'm not aware of any such sources for Clinton, so it's not an apt comparison. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

One way to treat it seriously is to ignore the allegations that Trump is in bed with the mafia, unless concrete evidence emerges. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, that is my position as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between having very remote business interests because real estate development is a small market, and being their "candidate" (sic). I object to this talkpage section. It should be closed/archived immediately.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is closing a day-old, legitimate discussion about article content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

support the removal in this main BLP, but support keeping Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Allegations_of_business_links_to_organized_crime in the sub-article, per WP:Preserve, although a header edit may be appropriate there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• That title is a BLP violation; I have changed it. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of this section until someone finds a top-quality high-circulation mainstream source (like Time, WSJ, BBC, NYT, Reuters, AP) that supports it. See the WP:RSVETTING essay. A variable-quality medium-circulation source (like FOX, CNN) isn't good enough to support a contentious statement about someone.

"Contentious material is material that people might take a position on for ideological reasons."

What if we found support for the material in both FOX and CNN? In that case I think it would likely be judged (by a large majority of Wikipedia editors and the public, whether biased or not) as comparatively non-contentious. We could then cite both variable-quality sources! --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think CNN is usually adequate but the bigger problem is that this particular article attributes the allegations to other sources, suggesting that CNN itself did little or no fact checking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the real BLP violation was the section in the main article presenting Trump as the Mafia's candidate. Thankfully, it has been blanked by DrFleischman. I am personally on the left of Bernie Sanders, but there are some methods I find unacceptable. --Allen Nozick (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When did it ever say that? It simply said that Trump did business with the Mafia, which is well documented. Wasn't it you that used the phrase "Mafia's candidate?" Objective3000 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• My wicked sense of humor, I suppose. --Allen Nozick (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As seen here on Trump's position page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

I feel that Trump's position on the 2A should be mentioned as part of his platform in the lede so I added "protection of the Second Amendment", as it's stated on Trump's site "Protecting that freedom [2A] is imperative" and to go along with similarly brief statements like "reform of veterans' care" and "replacement of the Affordable Care Act" but was reverted for the wording being vague.

Does anyone know a suitable wording? Zaostao (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, without taking a position pro or con about whether something like this belongs in the lead, I can certainly discuss how it might be clarified. To say that his platform includes protection of the Second Amendment is vague. Does it mean he wants to protect the Second Amendment from being repealed? Does it mean he wants to appoint judges who protect a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment? Does it mean he wants to make sure that government officials don't violate whatever the Second Amendment means according to the Supreme Court? The whole thing is very vague. It would be much clearer to say that his platform includes protecting a broad Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

All politicians make vague, feel-good promises. Protect the Second Amendment, save Medicare, support veterans, tax reform. It's generally impossible to pin these down to specific proposals or actions, and it's not our job to try. We can't put words in their mouth. We can only report what they say. As to whether to include it in the lede: the lede should contain a few (no more than half a dozen) of his best known issues (i.e., most widely reported or most frequently and at length expounded by him in his speeches). Offhand I don't think his 2nd Amendment position is one of those half dozen. Furthermore, it doesn't distinguish him; all Republicans and many Democrats say the same thing; it's just an expected check-mark on their platform. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says "Trump supports the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general". Almost every politician says they support the Second Amendment (though they interpret it in very different ways). But general opposition to gun control might be brief and distinctive enough for the lead; we can check the sources but I think general opposition to gun control has been a constant and major theme.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a very big topic in his rallies—usually in conjunction with SC picks—and there was of course a lot of coverage on it last week. Clinton's article also talks of "protecting women's rights" in the lede which is even more vague than protecting the 2A and something that you'd expect every candidate to say. Sorry if that's an otherstuffexists argument. Zaostao (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not significant that a candidate for president supports the Constitution. It is only significant when s/he opposes it. TFD (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but 99% of all descriptions of policy positions that reference constitutional language are going to be non-neutral. Mainstream reliable sources do not talk about protecting or supporting the Second Amendment. They talk about opposing gun control (or occasionally, supporting the gun industry). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Both candidates support gun control to some degree. For example neither supports the right of prisoners to keep and bear arms, although they enjoy all the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. TFD (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying anything about the candidates' positions on gun control. All I'm saying is that when our articles discuss gun control, they should do so using neutral language, which generally means no references to the Second Amendment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why we should not "discuss gun control" in this article, which would mean specific proposals or policies from him - of which I don't think he has any, or doesn't talk about specifics in his speeches. We should discuss or list what he says, not what we think he meant, and not some obscure passage in his written platform (if he never bothers to spell it out in his public utterances). If this means we use somebody's weasel words, we use them - or else leave the subject out. I favor leaving it out in this case; he is just saying what every other candidate says, reciting a Republican mantra. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

He says quite a bit beyond mantras. See Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Gun_regulation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe his positions on gun control, then so should we. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We do describe them - at the Political Positions article. This is a biography. It is not the place to lay out all his political positions in detail - just to mention a few highlights as they are relevant to understanding the man. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of newspaper ad, Trump's first documented hint of candidacy in 1987

An open letter placed by Trump to several newspapers was removed in an edit by User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz on August 16th with the summary "fails NFCC#8, also image of copyrighted text can be replaced by limited textual excerpt if appropriate". I would respectfully submit that this image be restored. It seems to me that in the context of this article it does meet this NFCC criterion, as its omission removes the first documented speculation of Trump's presidential candidacy in national politics.

With regards to the limited textual excerpt, the copyrighted text itself is not the subject-matter the picture is meant to convey, nor the sources attached, but rather it is placed there to illustrate the letter itself as it appeared in newspapers on that date. That a full page political ad was placed by a real estate developer in several national newspapers, without any other context, is in itself significant given the subsequent events. Moreover, the fair usage of this article specifically meets Wikipedia's standard fair use license for newspapers in that it does not replace the copyrighted text itself, nor does it feature a copyrighted image, but rather illustrates the publication in question. In contrast to the superfluous nature of other images in this article, I feel this is not without its contribution. --Simtropolitan (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• "To illustrate" is not a sufficient rationale for using a nonfree image. The meaning of the statement illustrated is quite clear from its text alone; therefore the image fails to satisfy NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The standard license non-free license literally states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." This somehow negates contextual significance? Wikipedia's own policies explicitly contradict this.--Simtropolitan (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Meeting fair use license standards is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify the use of a nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• See my first post, to say that it does not contribute any matter to the article would be, in my opinion, fallacious. When one considers this was his first formal press release of a political nature, I still hold that this does contribute to the readers understanding of the article given its unorthodox nature. I'll leave it at this until a third party addresses the matter.--Simtropolitan (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement. (1) Most pre-1990 advertisements aren't found in searchable databases. The image illustrates that the text was indeed published. (2) It illustrates Trump's sense of graphic design as it was thirty years ago, when he first began publicly expressing his political ambitions. (Was it more/less sophisticated than his current sense of graphic design? Of architectural design?) (3) It indirectly aided my understanding by providing a clear graphic 'anchor' to the section in the body where his political ambitions are first discussed. (Perhaps it could be better positioned, though?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether NFCC applies to this ad, but I propose that we restore the following which is still valuable biographical information. In fact, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, why didn't you leave this text in in some form?

Trump first expressed interest in running for office in 1987, when he spent $100,000 to place full-page ads critiquing U.S. defense policy in several newspapers.

References

- MrX 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone object to this sentence being restored? - MrX 21:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Terror countries"

I know Trump used the term, but what in the world are "terror countries"? Just because he uses the term doesn't mean an encyclopedia needs to pretend that it's an actual thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's shorthand for nations with a "proven history" of terrorism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Says who? It's bad writing and non-encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And what the hey is a "proven history of terrorism"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"Proven history" is a phrase used four times in this BLP, e.g. "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a 'proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies', or countries 'compromised by terrorism'."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The source used the term without quotes, so we can do the same. Trump explained it, according to the source: "where you have tremendous terrorism in the world, you know what those places are." TFD (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not an explanation. We need to be careful not to put Trump-speak in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Somebody has changed the sentence in the "immigration policy" section to read "According to his campaign, his revised proposal would bar Muslims from, as he coined, but not specified it, "terror states". IMO that is awkwardly worded as well as inaccurate; his attempts to specify what he means are included in the very same paragraph. The version it replaced - "his revised proposal would not bar Muslims from non-terror countries" - was even worse, and does not appear to be true according to the source (his spokesperson refused to confirm that he would allow Muslims from peaceful countries). And it does not appear to be correct that his revised version refers to just "Muslims" from terror countries; in fact he says it would ban "people" from terror countries. Let's try to work out a consensus sentence. For now I'm just going to replace "from, as he coined, but not specified it" with "what he called "terror states". BTW according to the reference provided there, "terror states" was his spokesperson's word, not his. Do we know if he has said "terror states" or "terror countries"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not up to date with recent changes on this article and I don't have time to look at this but this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Muslims_immigration_ban) should be a fairly solid overview of the frequent changes to the Muslim ban. I agree that we should preferably not use short-hands such as "terror countries" when Trump has clarified it to refer to countries with a "proven history of terrorism". We should preferably note that Trump's categorization of which countries fall under that label remains vague. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This article [14] shows the different descriptions he has used over time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's start over. Take another look at the whole paragraph, as currently in the article:

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his initial plan for a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[417][418][419][420] Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[421][422][423] Trump said that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants[424] describing it as an expansion.[424] He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting".[425][423] According to his campaign, his revised proposal would bar people only from what he called "terror states".[420]

Actully that final sentence - the one that says "terror states" - is redundant anyhow. His actual current position, with "proven history" and "compromised", is already in the paragraph. The final sentence only muddies the water. I propose we simply get rid of the "terror countries" wording that is giving us so much trouble, by deleting that last sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the last sentence, but tweaked the rest. I think the main point here is that Trump has made the proposal territorial, and so that expands the previous position by making even some non-Muslims subject to the policy if they come from countries compromised by terrorism, whereas even Muslims would not be affected if they come from countries like Scotland that have not been compromised by terrorism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds like classic original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And when you add "because those countries have been compromised by terrorists whom they have allowed in, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned" you've once again slipped Trump speak into Wikipedia voice. Which makes it POV. Trump, and his supporters might imagine that "those countries have been compromised by terrorists" (wtf that means) but that doesn't make it true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence now says (emphasis added): "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face 'extreme vetting', because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned." Everything is attributed to Trump so Wikipedia is not engaging in any Trumpspeak.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurately attributed to Trump. He has never said "Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned." That's putting words in his mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To ensure no BLP violation, I have revised it to say this: "but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree the new "tweaks" are original research and not supported by the sources. (Anythingyouwant, you really should have discussed those significant changes here where the paragraph is under discussion.) You added this sentence: "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting" because those countries have been compromised by terrorists whom they have allowed in, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned.[425][423][420]" "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned.[425][423][420]" "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland.[425][423][420]" I don't think Trump has ever spelled it out this way. Yes, he gave France and Germany as examples of countries needing "extreme vetting" "because of people they have allowed in," and I believe he mentioned Syria as an example of a country he wouldn't allow anyone from. But all he said about Scotland was that he would be OK with Muslims from Scotland; he didn't explain why; that's OR. Furthermore, his spokeswoman specifically did NOT confirm that Muslims from peaceful nations would be OK, or that only Muslims would be subject to the "territorial" test. And Trump has never made that clear either. I think this newly added sentence is not justified, precisely because his current policy is too murky to be spelled out clearly like this. I prefer the version we had - the version I quoted above, minus its last sentence as agreed - and I think Anything's new last sentence should be reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the cited source about Scotland. The title is quite clear: "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries". Do you disagree that the article title correctly summarizes the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The source's headline is clear but inaccurate. The spokesperson they are quoting (not Trump himself, so that's error #1) actually said "Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states, but she would not confirm that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries." That's error #2. Not all headline writers get it right. This one didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the headline is inaccurate, and I suggest we resolve this issue before proceeding further. I will present detailed information to prove to you today that the headline is correct, but it will take some time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"He didn't explain why." Correct. His son did.

ERIC TRUMP, SON OF DONALD TRUMP. The difference between a Muslim faith coming from Scotland is you can actually vet them. I think my father's biggest point was ... if you have 200,000 Syrian refugees in this country, they don't have files... They are not in any kind of database.

Eric Trump, interview by Greta van Susteren, Fox News, June 27, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

....which is not the same as the reason Anything ascribed to Trump - that Scotland had not let in terrorists and therefore Scots would not be banned. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is essentially the same. Germany has allowed in a million un-vetted Syrians this year. Scotland has not. Therefore any Muslim immigrants from Scotland to the United States can be thoroughly vetted. Anyway, this is merely background information, and I'm not suggesting to put any if it in this article as of now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow, not to get too bogged down in quibbles - I continue to think that this sentence should be removed, not only because it is inaccurate, but because it is TMI for this biographical article. Spell it out in that much detail at the Political positions article, not here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

From Template:Original research inline: "In the event that researched origins for the text are not produced after a relatively small passage of time (i.e., no more than a few days) ... it could be edited or otherwise removed from the article to comply with WP:OR." Could you edit accordingly, Anythingyouwant?

Any material about Muslims coming from France, Germany, and Scotland does need to be directly followed by this explanation (otherwise the material would appear unhelpful or worse, being so readily susceptible to misinterpretation). --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an overall diff showing how I edited the article today. As you can see, the stuff about Germany and France was in there already, and I inserted an explanation (which seems to be what you're saying was needed). I also mentioned Scotland, because it would not be NPOV to only mention Germany and France. So, I deleted the last sentence per consensus above, but kept a mention of Scotland. I strongly feel that the article headline of the Jenna Johnson article in the Chicago Tribune is accurate, MelanieN disagrees, and I think we need to resolve that issue. Per Melanie's request at my talk page, I don't intend to edit this stuff again today, unless for BLP reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The headline incorrectly states that the new policy would apply "only" to those from terror-heavy countries. But the source for the article - the Trump spokesperson - refused to confirm the "only" part of that claim. In other words, the article text does not actually support the claim that it would "only" apply to those territories. So I want the word "only" removed from this sentence in the article: "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism". Your recent revision has solved the OR/putting-words-in-his-mouth problem regarding Scotland, so the word "only" is my only remaining issue with your changes. And the larger question: should the sentence be there at all? I feel it should not. Looking for input and hopefully consensus on that question. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the word "only" is correct, and the headline is correct, and will provide evidence of that later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Muslim ban now only applies to those from particular countries?

Here is the article by Jenna Johnson about Scotland in the Chicago Tribune. The headline says: "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries". User:MelanieN doubts that the source's headline is accurate, because the spokesperson quoted in the article would not later confirm that the ban would not apply to Muslims living in peaceful countries.
I think the headline is correct, for several reasons. The Chicago Tribune article and headline are repeated in The Washington Post, and other reliable sources. Also, Trump said that Muslim immigration from Scotland would not bother him, and Jenna Johnson properly drew the inference that he only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism. The June 25 WaPo article by Johnson reports (emphasis added):

“ Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism.....During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Trump if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it "wouldn't bother me." Afterward, Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states, but she would not confirm that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries. This firm new position is a dramatic deviation from those Trump took on Dec. 7.... ”

So, we have a statement from Trump, plus a statement from Hicks, albeit one that Hicks did not repeat. So the headline accurately captures what the article says.
Let's look now at other news reports that confirm that Jenna Johnson headline. Here's a report from Fox News that included the transcript that the Jenna Johnson article used:

“ REPORTER: Yes. You said countries linked to Islamic terrorism would be blocked in terms of immigration.

DONALD TRUMP: Countries with great terrorism.
REPORTER: So would a Muslim coming from Scotland or Great Britain, have you tweaked your policy on that? So --
DONALD TRUMP: It wouldn't bother me.

”

It seems like a perfectly valid inference by reporters that this means the ban (or "extreme vetting" or whatever) applies to countries with great terrorism, not countries like Scotland and Great Britain. Likewise, CNN correspondent Sunlen Serfaty characterized Trump's remarks this way: "Trump is now softening his position, no longer supporting a ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. just those from terror states, as long as they are vetted strongly." This yet again confirms the Jenna Johnson headline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Inference" is another name for "Original research". Or in this case, of reporters trying to draw conclusions from some very vague and contradictory statements, putting words in his mouth that he hasn't said. Nobody from the Trump campaign has said, firmly, that the ban would NOT apply to Muslims from peaceful countries - in fact the spokesperson refused to confirm that conclusion, even though she had just said it would "just" apply to Muslims from terror states. Trump said immigrants from Scotland "wouldn't bother him". He said it while he was IN Scotland, so it may have been just a courtesy. It's a long, long way from repealing his ban for all countries not on his "terror" list (which apparently he gets to define at his whim; putting France and Germany on the list, for instance, does not meet his original definition of "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies"). Anyhow, IMO the claim that he is now proposing to ban "only" Muslims from countries on his list is unproven, and I think the word "only" should be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think this BLP, including the lead, should directly contradict secondary sources including news reporters at the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and CNN because you think you understand the primary sources better than they do? I will have to disagree. Moreover, if Trump says that he supports a ban on Muslim immigration from countries compromised by terror, it's just silly to insist that he also supports such a ban for countries not compromised by terror.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions and inference again. I will believe he has dropped the ban from countries not on his "terror list" when he says so. Anyhow, leaving out "only" doesn't contradict him; it simply leaves it up in the air, which is where he has left it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No, for us to say "Trump supports a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States" strongly implies all Muslim immigration to the United States, which is directly contradicted by multiple secondary sources (not to mention on multiple occasions directly by Trump and his spokesperson that I've already linked to). He said Muslim immigration from Scotland and Great Britain "don't bother" him. He's said that his ban would apply to "countries with great terror" and "countries compromised by terror", and he's explained at great length why he thinks France and Germany compromised themselves by admitting a million unscreened Syrians. I adamantly oppose misleading Wikipedia readers by saying without qualification that Trump supports a temporary ban on foreign Muslims coming to the United States. That proposal itself was temporary, and both secondary sources and primary sources clearly show it has changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You have stated your position. I have stated mine. Time to hear from other people: should the word "only" be removed from the sentence "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism"." or should it be retained? --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, the lead was out of harmony with the body, so I fixed the lead (emphasis added): "Trump has also suggested temporarily banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States, which he later said would focus on those from countries with a 'proven history' of terrorism, and he also advocated raising the level of vetting for immigration from those nations." This uses language that you proposed in Archive 15 on 17 July 23:26 (emphasis added), "His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to 'unfair' trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." I do believe that it was also a BLP violation for the lead to state a position which all reliable secondary sources contradict.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to stop trying to revise history of Trump's behalf. It's not an objective way to present this content. Trump's entire campaign has consisted of

1. Trump makes an outrageous policy declaration
2. Opprobrium ensues—Trump sinks in polls
3. Trump and surrogates re-explain his comments, soften his meaning, and recast everything as if the original declarations never occurred
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We should be presenting material chronologically, without adding equivocating phrases like "in the past", "which he later said ", and my favorite: "... his initial plan for a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslim" ← What does that even mean? - MrX 23:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, we ought to just follow the reliable sources. As to your question "what does that even mean", I suppose a total and complete and temporary ban would mean that absolutely no non-citizen Muslims would be allowed into the US for a period of time while a more permanent policy is formulated. That policy has since been modified to focus on countries with a proven history of terrorism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow sources: NYT: "Donald J. Trump’s proposal to bar Muslim noncitizens from entering the United States, at least temporarily"; CNN" "they do not support his proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S"; USN: "Trump's proposal to temporarily block Muslims from coming into the United States.".- MrX 00:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying that reliable secondary sources have reported that he has modified his approach to focus on particular countries instead of all countries? The sources are quoted above and at Archive 15. It's not my fault he modified his position. If he hadn't modified it, then I'd be 100% for saying the policy today is what he initially announced. I think Melanie is correct that the "focus" of the policy has changed, and he isn't bothered by Muslim immigration from some countries. You want us to just ignore that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you take a couple of words from each source, I suppose you could write Shakespeare, but we're not supposed to be doing that. If he changes his policies, that's new information—not a reason to completely change the meaning of the material that already exists. On a similar note, the last sentence of the Immigration policies section include this bizarre construct: "...but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland." This is off-handed comment is not appropriate for an encyclopedic summary of Trump's immigration policies. - MrX 00:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We cannot continue to say or imply that "Trump's position is X" if he has changed it to "Y". Regarding Scotland, on what basis have you determined that his statement was off-handed? He was answering a direct question from a national news network reporter, not overheard muttering to a friend. I don't see how it could be NPOV to mention Germany and France without mentioning his very different position with regard to Scotland. You want us to only mention Germany and France but not Scotland?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Q:"Have you tweaked your policy on that also?"; A: "It wouldn't bother me." Great, but that wasn't the question. If his policy de jour is to allow Muslims from Anglo Saxon countries, then he should say so in a policy statement, then sources would say so, then we could add it to the article. We shouldn't be adding vague interview answers and misleading our readers into believing that Trump has minted a brand new immigration policy.- MrX 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you would never deliberately mangle a primary source, so I'll just point out that the question (already quoted above) was this: "So would a Muslim coming from Scotland or Great Britain, have you tweaked your policy on that?" Fortunately, we don't have to rely on primary sources because plentiful secondary sources are available. Your remark about Anglo Saxon countries is your personal invention as well, as neither Trump nor any other sources have made such a distinction. The distinction he has made is between countries "compromised" by terrorism (i.e. having a "proven history" of terrorism) versus other countries. This BLP is about Trump, not MrX's personal caricature of Trump, though maybe you could try starting such article (good luck with that). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Scotland's Celtic, MrX.

For nine centuries did we fight the cursed "Anglo Saxons"... --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I know. - MrX 02:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion, again, shows that it is senseless to discuss with pro-Trump-people. The deletion of the Trump-Phrase "terror states" (including threating the editor who put it in on his talk page) shows that many pro-Trump-editors here are trying to white-wash this article in every sentence. It is totally impossible to write some real facts about the narcissistic and irrational behaviour of Donald Trump, because the Pro-Trump-fraction will put all this in endless discussions on the talk page. Trump uses racist language "banning all muslims" and that is the fact. All the crazy wischy-waschy talk afterwards (immigrants from Germany and France will be "extremly vetted", but Scotland is okay), are pure deception, window-dressing the racist baseline which is clearly communicated by Trump and which is continuously kept out of this article for the reason of white-washing. This whole article is just a shame for everything what wants to be called an encyclopedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you wrote: "The deletion of the Trump-Phrase 'terror states' (including threating the editor who put it in on his talk page) shows that many pro-Trump-editors here are trying to white-wash this article in every sentence." I never objected to including the term "terror states". It's one of several descriptions that have been reported to explain which countries could not send Muslim migrants to the United States. Other descriptions are "countries compromised by terror" and "countries with a proven history of terrorism". The term "terror states" is fine for us to use, as long as further explanatory description is given, though maybe that explanatory description is enough without the term "terror states".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump isn't the man for reasonable description. (Redacted) --Jensbest (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant: If nothing else, it seems like we agree that we should rely on sources. Can you please produce a couple of reliable sources that say "Trump's proposed immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from Scotland?- MrX 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Making a late dinner right now for two. Will reply later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX asked: "Can you please produce a couple of reliable sources that say Trump's proposed immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from Scotland?" Yes, I can provide sources that specifically describe a Scotland exemption, plus sources that say Trump’s immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from any country that is not compromised by terrorism, or that has no proven history of terrorism, which of course would include a Scotland exemption:

• ”During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Trump if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it ‘wouldn't bother me.’”[15][16]

• "Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign."[17]

• "When pressed by reporters for details on his national-security policies, Mr. Trump said he would block immigrants from 'countries with great terrorism.' Muslims from Scotland or other parts of Great Britain 'wouldn’t bother me,' he said."[18]

• "Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to 'areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.' But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations 'tied to Islamic terror.' Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...."[19]

• ”Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism….”[20][21]

• ”Trump is now softening his position, no longer supporting a ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. just those from terror states, as long as they are vetted strongly.”[22]

• "the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'"[23]

• "His spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, told CNN Saturday that Trump supports barring only Muslims from 'terror states,' not all Muslims."[24]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In the quotes provided at the beginning of the sub-section from this source, Trump was apparently responding to a question from a reporter who asked about Muslims from GB and Scotland specifically.

Currently the article reads:

....but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland.

based on the sources, I think it would be more accurate to say:

.... but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from countries like Scotland.

CFredkin (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin: No, that would not be accurate. To extrapolate "from Scotland" to claim he meant "from countries like Scotland" is Original Research and not supported by anything Trump actually said. The question he was asked, and answered, was specifically about "Scotland and the United Kingdom," and he refused to expand on his answer. When a reporter in Scotland asked a followup question to clarify Trump's "it wouldn't bother me" response, Trump walked away without answering.[25] --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times interpreted it like CFredkin: "Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to 'areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.' But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations 'tied to Islamic terror.' Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...."[26]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The first two sentences in the second paragraph of Donald Trump#Immigration policies already covers that. The additional text, "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland." is not necessary and does not serve to enlighten our readers.- MrX 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

In my personal opinion I believe it's time that Trump's portrait be updated. The current photograph depicts him from August 2015, which was a year ago, and his head is slightly tilted. I feel that a more stable, straight and professional photograph should replace his portrait as well as on the United States presidential election, 2016 page. There are several photos of him that are labeled for reuse because they're already on the Commons. Here was the best alternative I could find on the Commons.

I would like to generate consensus for this photo to replace the portrait. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. He's looking away, frowning and it's not his best angle. Compare it to Hillary Clinton. We need a picture of Trump looking into/smiling at the camera, with a US flag in the background. Let us treat them as equals.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. In my opinion, the best we're going to get is this one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant: Oh no, he's squinting on that one. That would be terrible. The one we have now is fine, except we need a smile and a US flag to make sure no animal is more equal than the other...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: No, we shouldn't compare the two when making articles for them. We only need an accurate and decent quality picture that represents the subject. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but they are both running for the same office and yes, we need to treat them equally and make sure one picture does not give either candidate an unfair advantage.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, they should be the same quality and all that, but we don't need to go on a manhunt for identical pictures for them. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Wikipedia strives to have verifiable articles, free from original research, that are written from a neutral point of view. Trying to avoid giving either candidate an "unfair advantage" (however you happen to define either of those words) is not one of our primary goals.

If your main focus is on the electoral implications of our articles, maybe you should rethink why you are here and whether your goals align with those of this project. Graham (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to discourage me from editing. Sure, the content needs to rely on reliable third-party sources. The pictures, however, need to treat both candidates equally.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to edit with the goals of this project in mind. I think there's a reason that you don't dispute that your interests are electoral in nature. It would be worth your while to consider whether that is actually reconcilable with the values of this project. Graham (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to stop assuming bad faith (or stop talking to me if you can't do that). I am only interested in improving content. My political opinions are irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are irrelevant; it's the content that matters. Please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I made no reference to your holding any particular political opinion. I said that you were concerned about the electoral implications of Wikipedia articles. That is not an assumption on my part. You just stated "we need to treat them equally and make sure […] not [to] give either candidate an unfair advantage." From that, one can infer that electoral implications are, at the very least, a factor that you are taking into account when making editorial decisions (at least with respect to photos).

As you can see, there was no need for assumptions (of good or bad faith) on my part in order to see that. I would appreciate not to be accused of "assuming bad faith" when I am but reading what you wrote just a few paragraphs above this one. Graham (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

They are both running for the same office. We have a responsiblity to treat them equally. I am not interested in going around in circles with you--please stop talking to me--I am busy with more important research at present.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We could work together on the history of organized labor at some point--as long as it's productive work and content-oriented--just not now--too busy.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s: I regret to have to tell you that Graham's complaints seem justified, at least to this editor. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No. We can't have DYKs for political candidates for example. We have a culture of treating political candidates equally. Sorry I must finish reading two academic articles right now, no time to go around in circles with you guys! Please respect my time.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that you're right to do so (rather than go around in circles with us). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, to be honest, that one looks awful. And not because of Zigzig's reasons. Graham (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose because of the angle, in part. Graham (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. You need to convince people that this pic is better than the current one. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump (14235998650) (cropped)

Donald Trump portrait

Donald Trump January 2016

UPDATE, here are several other photos. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to update: All awful, except for number 2 perhaps, but the one we have at the moment is much better. Maybe the campaign will upload a better picture (smiling, looking into the camera, US flag in the background), but until then, let's refocus on more important things.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, Zigzig20s. Not yet. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes on top photo.

See Adding images: "Focus on uploading images that can ... illustrate the text of an article." Let's posit that the images at Trump Organization and Trump for President well illustrate Trump in his capacities as (A) businessman and (B) nominee. What do those photos have in common?

1. They're professional quality, not Twitter quality. They "enhance the subject's appearance with natural or artificial light". (See "Photographers", Occupational Outlook Handbook.)

2. Trump's head looks stable and straight, not mobile or tilted.

3. His expression looks natural and self-assured, not posed or quizzical.

We can reasonably infer that the proposed image illustrates Trump best. The current image fails 1-3 and can be removed for being poorly representative. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 07:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We really need him looking into the camera. The current picture is the best one to "illustrate the text of the article".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The current picture shows him looking away from the camera, Zigzig20s. Not "into the camera."

In addition, the photo appears in the Infobox, where the text describes Trump as both a "businessperson" and a "politician". Trump's business website shows him looking into the camera; his campaign website, away from the camera. We can show him either way. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Kek, that awkward moment that no one realizes that Image 1 actually gives him "demon eyes" .--Stemoc 04:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• None of the above. The proposed new picture is awful - looking up at him from below, emphasizing a saggy chin and lines on his face, and he is frowning. The other three proposed ones are not much better. The first has a twisted half smile, and his hair is doing something strange. The second is a frown. The third is a sappy, unnatural smile. None of them improve on the one currently in the article, which makes him look alert, curious, attentive, and natural. He is a guy who does not photograph well (in fact most pictures seem to show him with strange expressions on his face) but the photo currently in the article seems to have captured a rather sympathetic Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing both your personal esthetic judgment and your reasons for that judgment, MelanieN. (To me, however, the proposed photo makes him look like a leader set against some military, political, or business foe.)

Yes, the current photo does capture a comparatively "sympathetic Trump". But that's my point, Melanie. None of the images at trump.com or donaldjtrump.com show him looking sympathetic.

And almost none of the article text makes him sound sympathetic. (Cf. Adding images.)

Moreover, not much of the body of reliable sources on the subject does either. Based on your comment, the current image fails BALASPS.

If you have time, check out the pictures on Trump's websites. Two (of four) "look up at him from below". None show him looking even slightly "curious". Rather, they show him looking self-determined. The article text shows him in that light too, as do the majority of reliable sources.

Wouldn't you agree that the proposed photo does as well? (But maybe we should take a second look at it tomorrow.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not actively try to make a political candidate look bad or unsympathetic. I can't believe I have to state the obvious. We are neutral. We wouldn't change Hillary's picture to her "What difference at this point, does it make" exasperated look. Ergo, Trump's current picture is fine as User:MelanieN explained and if we can find a better one (smiling, US flag), we will.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." — WP:BALASPS.

"aspect ... is frequently used to indicate changes in the observer's point of view or specific compartmenting of his notions." "aspect ... suggests a characteristic or habitual appearance, especially facial expression, but most commonly is applied to nonconcrete things." — Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

BALASPS is policy and it applies to both text (in sense 1) and images (in senses 1 and 2). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous; you are reading too much into our policy guidelines. But by your rationale, Trump is very patriotic (he wants to make America great again!), so we should definitely have a US flag in the background!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS emphasizes the problem of recentism (discussed in detail at WP:10 year test). Trump has spent 50 years as a businessman, 2 as a politician. The background in his official portrait is gold, not red, white, or blue. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Should we have a picture of Hillary in a Walmart boardroom? Anyway. I think we should tone down the nonsense. There is an election going on; we have to be responsible and treat both candidates equally. That's not recentist. It certainly would not be appropriate to use the infobox picture to belittle Trump or Hillary.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It neither would be nor is. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Current infobox image is fine. Zigzig20s, please let it go. You've stated your opinion numerous times now and the back and forth needs to stop. Enough, already. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just contacted the Trump campaign through email requesting a professional portrait (Mr. Trump smiling into the camera, US flag in background, good angle, good lighting). I have also asked for a portrait that I can use under CC-BY-SA 3.0. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you seen to be arguing that it would violate BALASPS to show a "sympathetic" picture of Trump (by which I mean a picture that, if not exactly flattering, at least makes him look like a normal, decent human being). You argue against this because "almost none of the article text makes him sound sympathetic". The text is what it is; it contains quite a bit of well-sourced negative material; IMO it is appropriately balanced. That doesn't mean we have to seek out a picture that illustrates the worst aspects of his biography. The infobox picture is normally one that the subject him/herself might choose or be comfortable with; in the case of officials, it's almost always their official portrait. And it's not the only picture in the article. In addition to the infobox image there are nine other pictures of Trump in the article (three of him alone and six with other people). Surely that is a wide enough selection to provide "balance" so that we can allow a reasonably attractive picture in the inbox. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN! I'm arguing that we should show a picture that's analogous to the photos at trump.com and donaldjtrump.com. Those photos do "make him look like a normal, decent human being." I personally think they're "reasonably attractive". I didn't (and wouldn't) say they "illustrate the worst aspects of his personality". Nor, I think, does the proposed May 2015 photo, which I did and do support. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And are those pictures available per copyright status? If so, propose them here and let's talk about them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think User:CatcherStorm's approach is very good.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but i doubt his staff understand anything about 'creative commons' licenses...it will be a waste of time, I remember someone sending a similar requesting in February, did not get a reply...and also, if they do agree, then Catcher has to send the email and the image to OTRS before it can be used...just claiming that the Trump staff have approved a certain image for use is just not good enough..--Stemoc 08:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Could a NYC-based Wikipedian try to call them and upload the picture with them? I think that would be ideal.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:CatcherStorm: Did you try to contact them through this? To be honest, I don't think they have the time to read those.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I sent an email today to Hope Hicks, seeking pic. We'll see.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's staff actually do "understand ... about 'creative commons' licenses", Stemoc. And the photo on the left in the main section of "About Donald J. Trump" is CC BY-SA 2.0.

Credit: Gage Skidmore, photograph of Donald Trump at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., March 15, 2013.

Authority: Creative Commons. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We need a smile and a flag though.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not, Zigzig20s. The infobox gives his primary occupation as "businessperson", not "politician". Per Adding images, the photo can illustrate him as a businessman. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There's an election. We can't give an unfair advantage to Hillary with a smile and a flag. I'm sure we could look for arcane policy guidelines to make Trump look worse than Hillary and try to influence low-information voters subliminally, but we don't want to do that. I know you don't want to do that--I know you want to treat them as equals. Wikipedia should not be Animal Farm.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, your POV is showing. The only POV you should have -all editors here should have- is in the interest of Wikipedia as a neutral, encyclopedic entity. What's more, an infobox photo isn't going to influence anyone's vote. You're also now deep into personal attack territory. Cool it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, I have come to agree with what many others here have told you: your determination that the picture must include "a smile and a flag" has no consensus or support here. Please accept that no one else agrees that "a smile and a flag" are requirements for the infobox picture, or that Trump's picture must include the exact same elements as Clinton's for purposes of "equal treatment". You have not convinced anyone of this, and your continued insistence on it is approaching disruptive. Please drop it and don't bring it up again. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually think treating them as equals would be the most neutral thing to do. But I've made my point.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

They are different people. At the risk of sounding snide, should she also have orange hair? There has been way too much discussion of photos on Trump-related articles. To use an ancient quote: "When you will make an end of it?" Objective3000 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead changes 23 August 2016

CFredkin, this wasn't a constructive revert. You reverted 7 of my changes all in one fell swoop, simply saying that the additions weren't sufficiently notable. Several of my changes weren't additions of content so notability has nothing to do with it. I broke my edit up into pieces and included an edit summary for each one specifically so that other editors could consider each part separately. Please self-revert the portions you don't have a problem with. As for notability, Trump's falsehoods and his birtherism have both received extremely heavy coverage in the news. Birtherism coverage was discussed above in the section titled "POV lead." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like CFredkin carefully preserved all of your edits except those to the lead. True, your first edit to the lead did not introduce new material, but your second did, so maybe CFredkin could be faulted for reverting the first lead edit; personally, I don't think the reorganization in the first lead edit was needed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

After looking more closely at the first edit to the lede, I agree that it was beneficial. I've restored that portion. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Was Trump a real birther or was he trying to get Obama to release his full birth certificate? I'm not 100% certain, but I thought I read somewhere awhile back that he questioned why the long form certificate had not been released, but acknowledged the Hawaii birth certificate. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3, it would probably be best if you would look at the sources cited in this Wikipedia article on the matter, and also look at other reliable sources you can find, to get an answer to your question. Me giving you my own view would not be as useful as consulting sources that are more reliable than a mere Wikipedia editor (infallible though I am!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, what about these three edits? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with those three edits. It would have probably been simpler to make those edits before inserting the controversial stuff rather than after, but I don't see why those three edits cannot be restored. I do object to removal from the body of the article that the birther controversy was already "longstanding" when Trump got into it. The thing had been going on from 2008 to 2011, and instead we make it sound like Trump started the whole thing. Actually, he was pivotal in ending it; the whole controversy subsided greatly once the certificate was released. I believe that a firm consensus is needed to remove the longstanding description of the controversy as "longstanding". Regarding his statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored these edits as well. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I did agree with CFredkin's removal of "false" (in Wikipedia's voice) from the lede, but I assumed Trump's frequent falsehoods were mentioned somewhere in the article - as they are at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Campaign misstatements. To my surprise I don't find anything about that here. There needs to be at least a sentence about this somewhere in this article, since it is well documented. Likewise, I think there needs to be a sentence about the birtherism stuff - an issue which he revived long after it had died out, and which (according to some polls) more than half of Republicans now believe, thanks to him.[27] --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Is your concern about the importance of the falsehoods, or is it the use of "false" in Wikipedia's voice? Also, are you proposing that the birtherism remain in the lead section or just that it be included in the article? Because it does have a couple of sentences in "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If birtherism is in the article (I missed it) then that's enough. Yes, my concern was with having "false" in the lead and in Wikipedia's voice. I believe there should be a sourced sentence or two about this in the body of the text somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I agree that the birtherism paragraph needs not just the word "longstanding", it needs rewriting. This version makes it sound like something Trump was the first to come up with, when actually he just revived and re-publicized an old meme. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

To assert that the birther issue is "not notable" is ridiculous, particularly since it's closely related to Trump deciding to run for president [28] [29].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Right... particularly since he provided no indication that he was interested in running for President prior to 2011.CFredkin (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm splitting this out since we're getting all crossed up. This section is about the lead section. If we're going to talk about birtherism outside of the lead section, please start a new thread.

False

Melanie, I'm sorry but I don't understand your concern about adding "false" to the lead section. Trump's many falsehoods have received enormous coverage by impeccable sources such as the ones I cited from Factcheck.org and PolitiFact. There are of course many more. "False" is not a subjective or loaded term; it's purely factual. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's factual and sourced, but it cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice. It should be said in the body of the article, with sources (Politifact would be the best one). --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, what policy or guideline are you relying on? Neutrality? I'm not aware of any sources saying Trump hasn't made many false statements during so campaign, so are you objecting to the language? Or undue emphasis? The fact that verifiable facts paint the subject of an article in a bad light doesn't make their inclusion non-neutral. Are you saying Trump's falsehoods haven't been one of the most noteworthy aspects of his campaign? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another editor's concern, Dr. Fleischman. Merely claiming the sources are "impeccable" doesn't make them so.

"Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." — Lunsford.

The reality: Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are flawed sources, not "impeccable sources". Also they're narrow-circulation sources, not mainstream (broad-circulation) sources. For more about RS publications see the WP:RSVETTING essay.

Don't use either source to support contentious material anywhere in a BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do PolitiFact and FactCheck.org fact-check every statement by the presidential candidates? If not, how do they decide what statements to fact-check? Is there some objective criteria? As far as I'm aware, these organizations don't take any systematic approach to selecting the statements to analyze. Given that, I think we have to be careful about extrapolating out any broader characterizations about the candidates based on an aggregation of their work.CFredkin (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding me? Do we need to go to RSN to confirm that PolitiFact and FactCheck.org widely considered two of the most reliable outlets that exist? Yes, they are impeccable and if either of you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think is more reliable. Name a reliable news outlet and there's a good chance they've reported on Trump's many falsehoods. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My statement above made no assertions regarding the reliability of those 2 sources.CFredkin (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but the sources say that Trump made many, many false statements and you are questioning the reliability of those assertions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Are you guys kidding me?" Answer: No, Dr. Fleischman, we're not. Neither of those outlets has enough paid circulation or advertising to hire high-quality journalists. See WP:RSVETTING ("A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater likelihood of employing top-tier people"). Their readership is just too small. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if we reach a standstill on this issue then I will take it to RSN, where I'd put money on the result. In any case, you didn't answer my question: can you give me an example of a news outlet you'd consider more reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute, Dervorguilla. Our definition of Reliable Sources has nothing to do with paid circulation or advertising. Nothing! Some of the most UNreliable sources in the country have huge circulations and advertising. Our definition of a Reliable Source, per WP:RS, is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Note: WP:RS is an official guideline; RSVETTING is an essay. Read the notice at the top of that page about essays.) That certainly applies to PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. They take comments or assertions - that is, testable statements asserting facts - and compare them to the actual facts, and they use that to rate the truthfulness of the assertion. Their research is transparent, the facts they use for comparison are given, and their ratings are pretty much the standard for the truthfulness of political commentary. Politifact found Donald Trump to make so many false assertions that they couldn't even single one out for their "lie of the year" award for 2015; they awarded it to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump."[30] This is what we are talking about when we say his untruthfulness is well documented. I still maintain it should not go unsourced into the lede; but it definitely needs to be in the body of the article, and I will try to come up with a suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well said. However my proposal all along has been that it go sourced into the lede, not unsourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal because it doesn't affect the flow of the sentence as much. I agree with you on the sources, politifact and factcheck.org are both suitable. ~ Henry ^TALK 00:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Time and the Wall Street Journal have characterized PolitiFact as "spreading false impressions" and as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling their opinion pieces 'fact checks'.

WP:PSTS policy says to be cautious about basing large passages on opinion pieces. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Birtherism and 2000 Reform Party

I added the birther sentence to the lead section in part because I thought it was considerably more important than the sentence about Trump's 2000 flirtation with the Reform Party nomination. Thus, when I added the birther sentence it was a replacement of the Reform Party sentence. Do people think the the birtherism was less biographically significant than the Reform Party stuff? If not can we please remove the Reform Party sentence? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For sure, the 2000 presidential run was taking too much space in the lead so I boldly shortened it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the source says "In 2011 [Trump] repeatedly and publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President." At least that is not what he did. He questioned why Obama did not release his long form birth certificate, which Obama eventually did.[31] TFD (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"The more Mr. Trump questioned the legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s presidency, the better he performed in the early polls of the 2012 Republican field".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the language if it doesn't quite reflect the reliable sources. But, as both the body of this article and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump say, Trump did more than question why Obama didn't release the long form birth certificate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. He didn't then let it go after the "long form" birth certificate was released in 2011. Even though Trump took credit for the long form birth certificate release, he didn't drop it. He continued pushing for more records in 2012. As recently as 2015 he said he "didn't know" if Obama was born in the U.S. or not, and "I don't know why he wouldn't release his records".[32] It's Trump's pushing of this issue, both overtly and wink-wink, that has a majority of Republicans believing it. The birther thing is a signature issue for him. But it may not need to be in the lede of this biography; in the text is probably enough. Dr. Fleischman, why do you find it and the Reform Party issue mutually exclusive? Why can't they both be there? --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Reform Party sentence sticks out like a sore thumb as being relatively non-noteworthy compared to both the birther stuff and the rest of the lead section material. Trump flirted with a presidential bid for 2012 in connection with his birther campaign, and I believe that got a lot more media attention. There's no reason why 2000 gets space in the lead and 2012 doesn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, I shortened that material in the lead today about the 2000 candidacy so it's now very concise: "He briefly ran for president in 2000 but withdrew before any votes were cast." My feeling is that actually announcing a candidacy for president is a major milestone in a person's life, right up there with the person's date of birth and full middle name. Doesn't the shortening of this sentence make it more acceptable? Before, it said: "He briefly sought the Reform Party's nomination in the 2000 presidential election but withdrew prior to any primary contests."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with that change and believe it should remain in the lead. Including the 2000 candidacy (which was significant enough that we have an article about it) in the lede is entirely independent of where to mention birtherism; they are unrelated. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's incorrect that Trump's pushing caused a majority of Republicans to doubt eligibility. Here's an archived version of Wikipedia's birther article shortly before Trump got involved. It cites a poll saying 58% of Republicans already had doubts about his citizenship and eligibility.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The source above for 2015 indicates that he was responding to a question. The body of this article states that it was during a 6 week period in 2011 that he really pushed the issue. Compared to the things he's done in his career, and the things he's said in this presidential campaign (over a much longer period of time), I just don't see why this rises to the level of being ledeworthy.CFredkin (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please just put DrFleischman's edit back? It's pretty clear that CFredkin is gaming DS to make POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits by removing any piece of text, no matter how relevant or well sourced and then running around repeating "don't restore! don't restore! discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!". My good faith hath runneth out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see how CFredkin's edit summary might suggest that, but it's important to assume good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

After that edit, he self-reverted much of it, so I don't think his edits as a whole might suggest that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, but the bit about DS was unprovoked and unnecessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're making an (incorrect) assumption that the reference to DS was directed at you or anyone in particular.CFredkin (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

He did not self-revert the removal of the sentence "In 2011 he repeatedly and publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President. In June 2015, ", which is the bone of contention here. He self-reverted some minor stuff instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well sure, removing new content in the lead does not necessarily have anything to do with "gaming the system". I agree with Melanie that having the birther stuff in the text is probably enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a sentence that could go in both the body and lead:

Trump has said that he "single-handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate" after failed efforts by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Several other reputable sources are available, but 1-3 have the broadest circulations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to release his "long form" just because Trump says she did. More generally, let's keep this out of the lead, please. Trump's had lots of big or even bigger controversies (Judge Curiel, Mrs. Khan, Cruz's father, etc.).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AYW that Dervorguilla's proposal won't work--both on verifiability and importance grounds. However I disagree about comparing the birther thing to the campaign controversies. The birther campaign was more than a controversy, it was a sustained campaign that has drawn sustained media coverage for years and laid the foundation for his 2016 run. And the campaign controversies are already in the lead with the reference to Trump's many controversial statements during the campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would not object to saying something like "before and during the campaign". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed a partial rewrite of the "birther" paragraph in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section, see below. I think this paragraph is sufficient to cover the matter and it does not need to be in the lede (we can't possibly mention every controversial thing he has said in the lede). As for mentioning Hillary Clinton or John McCain in this context, as if to imply that they also had doubts about Obama's birth or citizenship, I absolutely oppose that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Trump's birtherism was more than just another controversial statement, it was a sustained campaign that laid the foundation for his 2016 run. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This definitely should not be in the lede. It's a non-issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's claim about president's grandmother

For a long time (more than a month) this article said "Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case".[33]

That was removed today by a bold edit without prior talk page discussion.[34]

I objected at the talk page: "Regarding his [Trump's] statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so."[35]

No one replied, so I restored the same basic material, though edited somewhat: "a claim that others had previously made based upon an incomplete court transcript of what the grandmother said."[36]

This edit of mine was then reverted, and the material was removed, with edit summary "i don't see consensus on talk for restoring this text".[37]

I have several objections to the last removal: (1) no one replied at the talk page when I said the material should be restored; (2) it's rarely appropriate to remove content with a bare assertion of "no consensus" without giving any substantive reason, see WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"; (3) longstanding content like this requires a consensus for removal, not consensus for restoration per discussion at Melanie's talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me or is it about one of CFredkin's edits? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think CFredkin was involved in this. My objection is to this removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed that sentence because it added too much detail with no biographical value. The point is that Trump's statement about Obama's grandmother was wrong. There is no benefit to describing in depth how this fallacy arose before Trump repeated it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you think there is value in saying that he repeated it instead of made it up himself?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The article neither says nor implies that Trump made it up himself. There would be more value in saying that the falsehood was debunked long before Trump repeated it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

something like that might work. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with DrFleischman's proposal.- MrX 12:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I propose a partial rewrite of that section, as below. I have simply left out the stuff about his grandmother as TMI (Trump didn't invent that anyhow, he was just repeating conspiracy-buff claims). I added his often-touted claim that he "sent investigators to Hawaii". And in addition to "he rarely mentioned it again" I believe we should add that when he is asked about it, he defends raising the issue to this day. Here is my proposal to replace the current "birther" paragraph which is in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section of this article. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He repeatedly demanded that Obama show his birth certificate (Obama had already released his birth certificate in 2008, but "birthers" demanded a more detailed document called the "long form birth certificate") and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here." Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying "They cannot believe what they are finding"; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii. In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate. Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out". He rarely mentioned the matter again, although he continued to defend his pursuit of the issue when asked. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said, "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it". Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records.

References

It could use some tweaks here and there, but overall it's a major improvement so I support implementing this now and we can make further edits later. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it until tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla and MrX: I see that you have both been tweaking this paragraph in the article. Would you be OK with replacing it with this version? --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No; it's a good-faith edit, but not a particularly good edit. To illustrate: Huffington Post and Salon do at first look like reputable sources. But a more experienced contributor would likely hesitate to use them in an ideologically contentious article. Why not substitute a more mainstream source?

Also, three very mainstream sources -- BBC News, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal -- actually contradict the NYTimes article's statement that the subject "rarely mentioned the matter again". (And the subject continues to openly brag in his biography page that he "single-handedly forced" Obama to release the document.)

As one of the non-sysop contributors here, I ought to tell you, MelanieN, that I think we're capable of dealing with this issue on our own. Before you spend additional time spelling out your views, could you address a more administrative-level question? I need to find out whether there's a guideline somewhere about reverting "longstanding" material.

If you come up with a definitive answer, you'll help contributors resolve disputes not just here but throughout Wikipedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I think you know that I am here as an ordinary editor and have been actively participating for months. So I am as entitled as anyone to propose wording. I appreciate your constructive criticism of this proposal, and I will work on incorporating your suggestions into my draft.
As for the definition of "longstanding", I know that you have seen the discussion about it on my talk page, where it became clear that there is no firm definition. I was a "learner" myself at that discussion, where more experienced admins explained that the wording of DS is meant to stabilize the article and to favor the status quo - so that a bold edit which removes longstanding material may be considered as "contentious" and can be challenged by reverting. One admin at that discussion suggested that something which has been in a very active article for a month or six weeks could be considered as "longstanding". But as I said, I am speaking here as an ordinary editor, not an admin, and am merely quoting what others have said. --MelanieN (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think it's pretty good, but the parenthetical should be revised into a sentence. I also think there should be some mention of Trump incorrectly stating that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya. Dervorguilla Makes valid point about using better source.- MrX 12:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's new immigration stance

[38], etc. How are we gonna deal with that? Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)