Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,376: Line 1,376:
== Russian involvement in lede ==
== Russian involvement in lede ==


New article just created that really belongs mostly in the sub articles. Maybe a brief mention in the post election section, but certainly not in the lede nor an entire section of a BLP. --[[Special:Contributions/68.228.149.115|68.228.149.115]] ([[User talk:68.228.149.115|talk]]) 21:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
[[Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election|New article]] just created that really belongs mostly in the sub articles. Maybe a brief mention in the post election section, but certainly not in the lede nor an entire section of a BLP. --[[Special:Contributions/68.228.149.115|68.228.149.115]] ([[User talk:68.228.149.115|talk]]) 21:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:36, 10 December 2016

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

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Appearances on WP:TOP25

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Trump Photo 2 Rfc


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

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

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

How is the current image not NPOV? Anyway, I really don't think we should switch to a black and white picture. Dustin (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any change to infobox image before the official White House portrait is released, as a cost/benefit fail (actually I Oppose this RfC). Oppose this choice in particular, for various reasons including B&W. OP's NPOV argument appears to be a misunderstanding of NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am saying the black and white is a possibility but I can't find anything else. I am looking for suggestions while trying to the get this picture approved from author Picture Dyl1G (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G[reply]
@Dyl1G: Ok, but that's a misuse of the RfC process. An RfC is for asking a specific question ("Do you have any suggestions?" is not a specific question) or making a specific proposal, and seeking a consensus on the question or proposal. If your intent is to solicit photo suggestions, you should remove the {{Rfc}} template from this thread and assume that there is enough participation at this article to get a fair number of viable suggestions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

@Dyl1G: You dropped the Politics listing. Fixed.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT - Please let's replace the current photo of Trump that is in the infobox here, and on the United States 2016 President Elections page! Anything is better, as long as he is smiling and doesn't have a microphone obscuring him.--FeralOink (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until an official presidential photo is released. Until then, the longstanding photo should remain, as it has undergone much discussion and survived all of them. Chase|talk 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I am saying is that the photo seems a bit biased in my opinion. That's all. Dyl1G (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G[reply]
    That's because you (like many editors, so don't feel bad) don't really understand WP:NPOV, as I and others have said previously. One immediately above, at 01:07. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - If anyone is given the opportunity to change the picture, there will be bias. Just wait for an official presidential photo to be released, then use that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adotchar (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – First, per Mandruss, I oppose the very idea of changing the picture at this point. Second, the proposed image looks absolutely dreadful to me, just like probably the current one looks dreadful to the OP. And we won't ever settle an WP:ILIKEIT debate, so i advocate a WP:SNOW close for this RfC. — JFG talk 09:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support said close (abort), as I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extended off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, This RfC, even though handled poorly, is only a few days old and already you're ready to shut it down. What are you afraid of? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: Assuming facts not in evidence. Who said I'm afraid of something? Did you read my !vote argument? Anyway, I don't have the power to shut down RfCs. I stated my view that we should do so, and, if that view gains consensus, the RfC will be shut down. That's how RfCs work, and in fact an RfC was aborted on this page just weeks ago because a consensus was reached to abort it. I welcome you to particpate in the process instead of making spurious and fallacious arguments to try to circumvent it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyl1G: With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Given the present location I doubt this RfC is going to get much attention as it is. This entire talk page is beginning to resemble a wall of graffiti -- who notices any one item anymore. i.e.One voice in a middle of an arguing crowd. Thanx for the effort at least. I'll see what I can do to bring attention to the matter. I added the other photos to this gallery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Not being handled very well? Is it anybody's fault that 27 threads were started after they started this one? I'm sure Dyl1G appreciates the "all due respect", but your reasoning frankly sucks, and that's been an ongoing pattern throughout your disruption of this talk page on this issue. Let's note that you found a solution to that problem 22 minutes after you complained about it,[2] but your complaint remains. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I extended respect and merely mentioned a general criticism that the RfC wasn't being noticed by many, explained that it was buried in a sea of talk, and did not fault anyone personally as it is obviously no one editor's fault. Once again this is not the place to vent petty peeves with repeated personal attacks. Anyway, it appears there will not be enough support for a comparable, pleasing and formal image for Trump's bio', as the Clinton bio' has received, yet you're still venting. Please try to calm yourself, try not to violate talk page rules again and confine your remarks to article improvement as the rest of us have done. Thanks for your patience and understanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't just say that it was buried, you said that the RfC was not being handled very well. Nobody felt it was unduly buried until you did, and you could have just solved the perceived problem without a comment about the RfC not being handled very well. No post here was necessary or useful. That's the difference between facilitating collaboration and trying to undermine it. I'm quite calm, by the way, and opposing talk page disruption is a widely accepted way to indirectly improve the article and is anything but a talk page violation. It is not personal attack. It would be personal attack if one said something like, "You are an incredibly obtuse person who should spend a lot less time talking and more time watching and learning about accepted Wikipedia decision-making process." The talk page violation is your persistent disruption. You and I are indeed involved in a days-long one-on-one conflict, and the difference between us is that I'm supporting process and using sound reasoning, and you have done neither. Don't expect me to give you the last word on this, as you have absolutely no leg to stand on. However, we can continue this on my user talk page if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lecture me on process when you just took it upon yourself to suppress supporting opinion across the page. And your recital here about what you didn't say, but said anyway, is sort of a cheap stunt and clearly a personal attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Behave like a belligerent newbie for days, and expect to be treated like one. We would have been at WP:ANI about 24 hours ago with a disruptive editing complaint, but I'm well aware of the ineffectiveness of that approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only time ANI's are not effective is when peevish editors go there expecting to get a ruling about peckish issues that don't involve policy violations. When there is a clear policy violation they are effective. Problem? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only that were true. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (image 1) -- We need to treat both the Trump and Clinton biographies in a fair and balanced manner for the sake of the readers (remember them?) who come to Wikipedia to see a neutral presentation. Both biographies deserve a formal/smiling pose of their subjects. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all of the above – there is nothing wrong with the current picture. Wait until the official White House portrait is release to change the picture. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. The current image is unproblematic, and we already have consensus for a replacement when the official White House portrait soon becomes available. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose There's nothing wrong with the current photo, never has been. Wait until his official presidential portrait is available then we will use that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: there have been too many changes and too many votes. Let's wait for the official portrait.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I would prefer image 5 if the microphone wasn't in the way. IMO image 3 is our next best option because he's smiling. The current image should be replaced until his official portrait is available. It is POV to have an infobox image where he has a uneasy/troubled look on his face when there are so many other images to choose from. Shocking that on Hillary Clinton's page, her infobox image is of her smiling... Meatsgains (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support (1, 2 or 4) - to put it bluntly, I think the current image is a disgrace to wikipedia. Not the picture per se, but the fact that it is used in the infobox, or in any infobox at all. As far as NPOV is concerned, I just find this absolutely sickening, even though I'm definitely not a fan of Donald Trump. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this and any more like RfCs that come up until there is an official photo. Objective3000 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Seems silly to change it after all this time and other RFCs, we should wait until the official white house portrait is unveiled.  g@rycompugeek  talk 20:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a debate about personal preferences, which will never be productive. The current image is perfectly fine until they release an official portrait. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nothing wrong with current photo and wait until an official one is released. --Bod (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until official photo is released. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we use a photo on the Presidential Transition site, for the content is licensed under a CC license? Just wondering since nobody brought this up yet. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The URL is a governmental one, but there is actually a 501(c)(4) organization behind (at least some of) the contents, founded back in April or May or something like that, aka probably campaign-owned. I would be careful yanking photos from there, unless the photo in question is specifically licensed, as an individual photo, unmistakably. You might be able to get a proper answer if you email media_at_ptt_dot_gov (which I guess stands for potus-transition-team), although that contact is intended more for newspaper-journalists rather than wikipedians per se. But if you are going to do that, might as well just ask them to directly upload a proper ccbysa4 photo to commons. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Incomplete or ill considered here, the photo has been discussed since he election with general result of wait for the official photo. The proposal above gives no basis to reconsider that, a basis of how these photos were chosen or any rationale why they would be preferred or why a change is much needed. The existing photo is not problematic by WP:BLP items at WP:BLPTALK or WP:MUG, and is reasonable by WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:IUP. And these have no other special context to prefer them - they're not iconic of the moment or acceptance speech, not even after the election. The existing photo actually seems somewhat more appropriate as the image he won with, but I'll suggest that status quo should apply -- because if we change this one on a whim, then what's to stop another coming up tomorrow and the next day and dueling whims ??? We'd have to toss anything out in a couple of months anyway when the official photo arrives so wait for the official photo. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Oppose-This is getting ridiculous. I was once in favor of changing the photograph, but we have now had far too many time-wasting discussions on the issue. Just wait until we have the official photo. Display name 99 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a photoshopping contest. --Bod (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I personally do not see this as a very flattering picture and think that a better one (particularly looking at the camera) should be used. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment - In connection with my above support, I see "Wait for an official photo" as more of an excuse to do nothing than a choice based on the photo itself. The article is being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per day, if there is a better, recent photo of him, it should be changed/used immediately for all of the future viewers of the article to see including the majority who are not talk-page viewers or editors at all. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - wait for official WH photo. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support three-quarter portrait #1 for now, and look forward to official portrait as that seems to be unquestioned consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Summoned by bot. The current photo is fine. Agree that an official portrait would probably suffice unless it is peculiar in some way. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is out of context, and shows Trump with sort of a frown with his eyes shifted to the left. In terms of president's and notable people's biographies, the image is far from fine. Raises the question of why this bio isn't treated the same as the others, esp since there are formal images that show Trump smiling to chose from. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you obsess over having him smile? Look at the official portrait of FDR or Trump's choice of a cover photo for his own campaign book. The presidency is not about being cheerful! — JFG talk 05:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Obsess" is unfair. And it's not like that Q hasn't been answered before, in detail, in Talk archives. (And Trump's book had a specific focus/purpose. Not a BLP. Sheesh.) IHTS (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks IHTS. -- JFG, once again, it's about treating the Trump biography the same way other such bio's are treated. As mentioned, the Trump bio is viewed by the readers thousands of times a day, and as many have already expressed, they are going to wonder why Trump's bio/photo isn't par with the others, esp when they compare it to Clinton's, which many have done and will continue to do, esp on inauguration day. Don't expect you to acknowledge any of this at this point -- I only reiterate for newcomers to the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: I understand where you're coming from; I once advocated for a change of picture, or at least some retouching of this one. Ultimately, this choice is very subjective. All along the campaign, there have been many debates over Trump and Clinton's pictures, including a particular photographer pushing his portraits… Ultimately it's a matter of WP:JDLI and for both candidates I guess the least-bad image outlasted the other options. I also believe that stability over time and consistency across articles are more important than style. I appreciate your effort to rectify bias; I just don't happen to believe that the stability of this particular picture is a result of anti-Trump bias (and God knows we've seen a lot of such bias). — JFG talk 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the current photo looks ridiculous with smoke coming out of his ear. Nor is the photo representative of a decent serious pose. To an unbiased viewer, it could easily be assumed that the photo is a back-handed slap, trying to coast under the radar and still maintain a narrative that Wikipedia is an unbiased source for knowledge, as opposed to a cog in what is viewed by half the country as a corrupt and biased media. Mojavegreen (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support – The current image is definitely not representative of a neutral pose for which the main image of an article should be. Any of the above selections would be infinitely better than the current, which to me, seems to portray Donald Trump as not-so-good. NikolaiHo☎️ 06:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wait for official portrait. This is not a matter for partisan discussion. Usable photographs of politicians can be hard for us to get hold of. They must have a licence we can use, they must be of good quality, and they must show something of the character of the subject. As well as being reasonably current. This photo is of excellent quality- as opposed to what must be hundreds of phone camera shots - it shows Trump at a campaihn rally looking reasonably calm and controlled, and it has a CC license. Ticks all the boxes. If and when there is an official portrait, then it will be of the highest quality, it will have a usable licence, and it will have the full approval of the subject FWIW. While I can understand that there are those who are vehemently pro or anti any given politician, Wikipedia's needs override partisan debate, which is likely to be arid and acrimonious. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Regardless of any "partisan" input you feel may exist, the fact remains, the Trump lede photo is not par with Clinton's, President's and other such notable's photos. This has been made clear several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : You do realize that the Clinton photo [3] is the official photo from the State Department. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : A quick read of the submissions above reveals an overflowing wealth of partisan input. The more experienced hands here are not taking any such stance, but BLP image quality shouldn't be a matter of counting noses pro and con. The wikisuitability of the image is paramount. In line with similar articles, the official portrait will be the best. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He does deserve a reasonably flattering photo. I think the current one makes him look thoughtful. The proposed other ones, he looks just a little goofy. But they're all OK. Replace with official photo ASAP though. Herostratus (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait for official photo. Linguist Moi? Moi. 22:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I like the current photo and do not think it needs to be changed. Edge3 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think the current image is fine Summoned by bot. Couldn't care less. Put them all there if it makes people happy. Costatitanica (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #5, then replace with the official photo. Is this a public photo which can be used? https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DonaldJTrumpforPresident CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The encyclopedia will stagnate if you allow naysayers to prevent updates. The decision ultimately resides with the biographical subject himself, Donald J. Trump! b. roffmann (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Trump has as much say in the choice of infobox image as in any other content in this article; i.e., none. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing non-neutral about a non-smiling photograph, and it's best to just leave the status quo until we get an official White House photo shortly. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All of the other images given in the RfC show him with an unrealistic grin, but Trump is much more known for his serious side than for smiling a lot. The current image looks fine, and, as others have pointed out, is similar to the cover of his campaign book. Think, "You're fired!" Furthermore, we should wait until an official portrait of him is available since it'll be changed at that point anyway. JasperTECH (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing biased about, and nothing wrong with, a picture's subject not smiling. In addition, as has been noted, one in which he was smiling would not actually reflect his persona throughout the campaign. Editors should wait for an official presidential picture. AndrewOne (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to change it now, just wait until the official presidential photograph comes out next month and use that. MB298 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current picture is actually rather flattering -- he appears to be listening to someone else. The pictures where he is smiling make him look rather predatory to my eye -- a salesman. I think that any image used for this article will be accused of some sort of NPOV slant; so I agree that we should just use the official photo when there is one. There will be enough strife with the article. Elinruby (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: while we do need a better photo of Trump than those we currently have, none of those suggested are any better (and in some cases are much worse). Ebonelm (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Image 3 is better (w/o a microphone), and if a microphone is used, Image 2 is much better for him (this is not about other persons photos). YahwehSaves (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, mostly image 2, but since I read the comment above about the current one being ridiculous because of the "smoke coming out" of Trump's ear every time I look at it now I lol. Good image, except for the cloud coming out of his ear, which renders it useless as a dignified encyclopedic picture because, lol. Randy Kryn 4:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

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

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

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote should not be in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Should social network links be added to the External links section?

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

Support or Oppose
  • Oppose - Per WP:ELNO#social, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:LINKFARM. Twitter and Facebook are already linked from the home page of President-elect Trump's https://www.greatagain.gov/official website.- MrX 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the greatagain.gov website links only to social media accounts owned by the Transition 2017 team, not Trump himself. See Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Trump has separate accounts for his own use. Edge3 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's a good point. Obviously since this is a biography and not a transition article, the official website listed should be donaldjtrump.com, which does in fact link to all of his social media accounts.- MrX 02:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an even better link. It also includes Instagram. This fully satisfies the phrasing of ELMINOFFICIAL. Dr. K. 02:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per MrX and my comments below. Also as MrX stated, the facebook and twitter buttons are clearly visible at the bottom of the official website. They even have a Youtube button. This is a textbook case of not including the social links. Dr. K. 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above and above. Any idea how many social sites exist? I don't think this is a road we want to go down. Objective3000 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Oppose after change of infobox website link, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, assuming that change stands. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arguments against are weak and outdated. WP:IAR applies here. Time to bring WP into the 21st century and ignore all outdated rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ELOFFICIAL: "it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information." The transition website is separate from Trump's personal social media accounts. Furthermore, Trump's usage of social media has caught a lot of attention from the press. Edge3 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This ongoing attempt to suppress opposing views, in this case, Trump's very own, need to stop. The entire article is begging for a pov tag while Wikipedia is being made into a mockery. if the facts are on your side there is no need to suppress anything on such flimsy basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What needs to stop are your ongoing WP:AGF failures. There is no evidence of "suppressing opposing views" here, let alone the clear evidence required by AGF. What you're seeing are differences of opinion as to proper use of External links. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got an edit conflict posting nearly the exact thing: What needs to stop is these constant attacks against other editors. No one is trying to suppress Trump's views by not putting a link to his Twitter account. Although you wouldn't know it by reading some of the cites given on the political articles; not everything is a conspiracy. Yet another WP:AGF violation. Objective3000 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that many of the !votes you call conspiracy come with p&g basis, which you failed to provide in your own !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per WP:ELNO#social, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:LINKFARM. People can go to his official website for links to these. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    His official website does not link to his personal social media profiles. There are separate social media accounts for his transition team. Edge3 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as notable sources of information about the subject (especially given that every tweet from The Donald begets a 10,000-word WP article… ) — JFG talk 22:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He uses them to communicate directly with tens of millions of people and often the mainstream press will pick up what he says it a tweet and make it front-page news. His twitter account is probably the most important twitter account in the world right now and it should be included in the external links section. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trump's use of social media in the way he is using it (as a primary means of communication with the people) as an incoming head of state is unprecedented and the guidelines were not (and could not) have been written with a case such as his in mind. Also, guidelines are guidelines and exceptions can be appropriate, which is, I believe, what we have here. Marteau (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we're going to link to these in ELs then shouldn't there be a prose paragraph about it in the text itself? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. I'm surprised Trump's characterization as "the social media candidate" is not yet mentioned in the article. — JFG talk 18:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as to Twitter, Oppose as to Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Reddit, VampireFreaks, NextDoor, Couchsurfing, WeeWorld, Plurk, et cetera. Because...Donald Trump's Twitter site is a subject of immense media and public interest, and if it's not in the External Links then it ought to be in the Infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as to Twitter and Facebook (and YouTube). For permanency; we can expect the Infobox Website data to get reverted back to the (outdated) campaign site from time to time. Oppose as to Instagram; see his current Biography page, "Meet The President Elect", President Elect Donald J. Trump, which shows Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube only. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose social media sites as External Links, except perhaps for Twitter as a second "official site". I would look favorably on proposals to change ELNO to be less restrictive in most regards, but as of now it applies. That said, I think that there is much good sourcing for an extensive section on Trump's social media presence, and it should include these accounts as citations to the primary sources, providing secondary sources citing each of those primary sources are given also. Potentially this could even end up including a table of social media links in that section, listing various data like number of followers or frequency of use. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ELNO is of course a guideline for which exceptions in unusual cases are explicitly permitted. Trump is by anyone's reckoning unusual ;) Marteau (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He uses them to communicate directly with tens of millions of people and often the mainstream press will pick up what he says it a tweet and make it front-page news. For example, his twitter account is probably the most important twitter account in the world right now and it should be included in the external links section. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose First, as a procedural matter, the RfC statement strikes me as non-neutral in tone, seeming to advocate rather clearly for one of the proposed options. Second, the term "official" as it is used in the second instance of the first sentence is clearly meaningless. If we are talking about Donald Trump as a private citizen, then what makes any kind of social media channel more or less "official" for a given individual? If we are talking about Donald Trump as the president-to-be, then no, it won't be an "official" channel in any sense, short of a formal administrative order; the fact that Trump is committed to continuing to use these accounts does not, in any legal or formal sense, make them official channels of the Office of the President, just because he occupies it while he is using them. Now, Trump could, theoretically, perhaps change that (though there are actual substantial reasons why that may be infeasible or even illegal to do so), but we have no reason to presume he will.
But those are all just incidental concerns about the way this issue has been framed. My actual substantive reason for opposing is that I don't think these links would represent useful supplemental resources for an encyclopedic summary of the topic, which I believe is a baseline evaluation that should apply to all of our content, even the outward-facing links. Clearly we will, with some frequency, be covering the content of Trump's tweets for at least the next four years--although, hopefully in a majority of cases, only after they have been covered reliable secondary sources. But just pointing at the accounts strikes me as an indiscriminate and context-less offering just for the sake of promoting everything the man has (or will) say on the account, without any encyclopedic framing. It will also open the door on validating social media accounts as de-facto acceptable links in other articles and in other contexts, an issue that I feel the broader community ought to weigh in on before greenlighting.
It's a tough call for me, because I generally view the external links section as a field for assisting our readers in reaching information that they may be interested in and which shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article for any of a number of reasons, but on the balance of factors, I think this particular variety of link should be avoided. At the very least, we absolutely should not list it as an "official" page for Donald Trump, as this could easily mislead the reader into thinking it is an official instrument of the head of state and government of the United States, which it absolutely is not. Snow let's rap 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Snow, very well stated. I have read all of the arguments and find this a slippery slope that could create a bad precedent for the encyclopedia.  g@rycompugeek  talk 12:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I totally appreciate the slippery slope argument, it can also be contended that our beloved encyclopedia should evolve with the times and reflect current means of communication. In 2005 your identity was a web site, in 2015 it's a social media profile. I believe that infoboxes about notable persons should list one social media account of their subject; it's usually fairly obvious to determine which platform is the subject's main outlet. Maybe a debate on Template talk:Infobox person would be the better venue? — JFG talk 14:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be.  g@rycompugeek  talk 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm not sure the word evolve fits. Evolution generally moves toward more complex forms. I wouldn't characterize communication via tweet rants as evolving. An editor on one of the political pages suggests we stop using the "obsolete" NYTimes or WaPo as RS and start using far-left/right wing "news" sites since this is where younger people get their news. Evolution is slow partly because most changes fail, allowing the few that are actual improvements to thrive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any editor's individual judgment on the validity of "tweet rants", the issue of documenting the preferred public outlets representing notable people is a legitimate question for the wider Wikipedian community to ponder… I for one would consider Edward Snowden's Twitter feed as highly relevant to his biography and infobox. There has been a similar debate for inanimate objects such as space probes, although that's a bit more far-fetched. Regarding your discussion of RS, I think the current guidelines are fine. — JFG talk 14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowden as his situation allows little other communication. Trump has pretty much all communication mechanisms at his disposal as he sits in the bully pulpit. And, I'm fine with current RS guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Assuming that Donald Trump on Twitter is a red link, the bare minimum would be inclusion of the Twitter feed, which is part of his essential essence. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Twitter, due to the importance of this form communication from the subject of this article; weak support for the others. Deli nk (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based more or less on what Snow says above. The purpose of wikipedia is primarily to provide encyclopedic information, or information which would be of use to individuals seeking what is basically encyclopedic information, which is what so far as I can tell external links are supposed to provide. Few if any social networking sites provide such information, and much of the information that they might contain which might be useful to someone seeking encyclopedic information will probably be presented without clear context as to what is being said. If information on one of those sites is clearly of encyclopedic utility, I have very very little doubt that rather quickly some more reliable source will discuss it, and very possibly even quote in toto. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Summoned by bot. Given Trump's well-known and widely reported use of social media I think such links are both encyclopedic and necessary.

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

  • Support per WP:ELOFFICIAL LavaBaron (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Summoned by bot. I am with Coretheapple no this one - Trump's made it pretty apparent that social media is the most effective way for him to get his message across to the people of the world. While I think it may be inappropriate to cite his social media in the body of the article, I think at the very least it is worth having his social media accounts listed as external links at the bottom of the page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's useful for people to have links to his social media there, so they don't have to go to his website. It would only add a few lines, and wouldn't crowd anything up. Adotchar| reply here 21:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Twitter, given the amount of coverage it receives. Oppose for the remainder as there's been no substantive argument for why they are in any way remarkable. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:ELOFFICIAL trumps WP:ELNO#social (no pun intended). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards qualified "support" because it's already clear that these newsfeeds will be favoured over traditional news briefings to journalists. Thus we are almost certainly witnessing a structural change. However, I wouldn't want the use of such links in this article to be a carte blanche for adding them all over the place. What about a formal trial period of, say, six months, with a review on this talkpage at that time? Just one question for the technically informed here: are such link targets stable? Tony (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Twitter. I agree with the supporters about the relevance to the subject's biography due to the extensive usage of the website and the notoriety of the posts made on it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for twitter. Trump's use of twitter should be discussed in the article. It is part of many of the key themes of the campaign, and continues to be a unique aspect of his communication with the American electorate. Linking it is linking a unique primary document, rather than a dogpile list of links. Oppose adding facebook, et al. for the rationale that they did not play this unique role. I understand the WP:ELIMOFFICIAL arguments and respect them and, to be sure, I agree I wouldn't want it to be precedent for other pages, but, again, Trump's twitter is unique. Chris vLS (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Summoned by bot. As Chris vLS noted, I too understand the WP:ELNO argument however, the policy does state that we should "generally avoid" providing external links to social networking sites. "Generally avoid" gives some flexibility for situations like this. Because Trump has specifically stated that he intends to use his social media accounts as a means to communicate with the public, this is absolutely relevant and his accounts are worth linking. What harm does it do including them? Meatsgains (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit summarizing political positions

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

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

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

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

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

Table comparing text before and after

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

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

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

Economic issues

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

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

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

Immigration

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

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

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

Climate change

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

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

Education

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

Foreign policy

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

File:Trump in Ames (24490966335).jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social issues

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

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

Health care

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

Fringe theories

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

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

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


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

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





















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







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










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






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





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


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







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
























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






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



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





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

References

References

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

editbreak2

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

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

Working draft

ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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


Economic issues

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

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

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

Economy

Trump's campaign tax plan called for levelling the corporate tax rate to 15%, eliminating various business loopholes and deductions,[57] and reducing the number of brackets for personal income tax: the top rate would be reduced from 39.6% to 25%, a large "zero bracket" would be created, and the alternative minimum tax and estate tax (which currently applies to individual estates over $5.45 million or $10.9 million per married couple) would both be eliminated.[58] His comments about the minimum wage have been inconsistent.[59][60][61]

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

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


Immigration

Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[75][76] Trump vows to build a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for.[77][78] Trump would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S., stating "Day 1 of my presidency, [illegal immigrants] are getting out and getting out fast."[79] Trump opposes birthright citizenship.[80]

In late August 2016, Trump hinted he might soften his position calling for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants.[81][82] On August 31, 2016, he made a visit to Mexico and met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, saying he wanted to build relations with the country.[83] However, in a major speech later that night, Trump laid out a 10-point plan reaffirming his hardline positions, including building a wall along the Mexican border to be paid for by Mexico, potentially deporting "anyone who has entered the United States illegally", denying legal status to such people unless they leave the country and apply for re-entry, and creating a deportation task force.[84] He said the focus of the task force would be criminals, those who have overstayed their visas, and other "security threats".[85]

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his original proposal in 2015 for a "total and complete" temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[86][87][88] Trump later changed his position in 2016 by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[89][90][91][92][93] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[94]

Immigration

Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[95][76] Trump vows to build a wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, promising that Mexico will pay for it.[77][96] He would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S.[79]

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his original proposal in 2015 for a "total and complete" temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[97][87][98] Trump later changed his position in 2016 by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[89][99][100][92][93] Trump characterized this as an expansion, not rollback, of his original proposal.[101]


Climate change

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[102][103] repeatedly saying that global warming is a "hoax".[104][105] Trump has called the EPA a "disgrace" and has promised to cut its budget,[106] and Bob Walker, a senior campaign adviser, has announced plans to eliminate funding for NASA's Earth Science program.[107] Trump has pledged to eliminate the Clean Power Plan[108] and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries, saying that it treats the United States unfairly and gives favorable treatment to countries like China.[109] However, after winning the presidency, Trump said he has an "open mind" towards the Paris agreement, while continuing to deny that man-made global warming is fact.[110]

Trump has appointed Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute advocacy group, as head of the future EPA transition team. Ebell has no scientific qualifications, and is well-known for denying that Earth is warming or that humans are responsible.[111][112]

Energy and climate

Trump's energy policy advocates domestic industrial support for both fossil and renewable energy sources in order to curb reliance on Middle-Eastern oil and possibly turn the USA into a net energy exporter.[113] His appointed advisers favor a less regulated energy market and do not think the threat of climate change requires immediate action.[114]

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

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


Education

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

Education

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


Foreign policy

Trump has been described as non-interventionist[128][129] and nationalist.[130] Trump has repeatedly stated that he supports "America First" foreign policy, though he is not linked to the historical isolationist America First Party (1944) or the defunct paleoconservative America First Party (2002).[131] He supports increasing United States military defense spending,[130] but favors decreasing United States spending on NATO and in the Pacific region.[132] He says America should look inward, stop "nation building", and re-orient its resources toward domestic needs.[129] He questions whether he, as president, would automatically extend security guarantees to NATO members,[133] and suggests that he might leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance.[134] Trump has called for Japan to pay for the costs of American troops stationed there and that it might need to develop nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from North Korea.[52][135]

In order to confront ISIS, Trump in 2015 called for seizing the oil in ISIS occupied areas, using U.S. air power and ground troops.[136] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][137][138] a position he retracted.[139] He has since argued that regional allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight.[11] He also believes that oil fields in ISIS-controlled areas should be bombed.[11] He supports the use of waterboarding, a form of torture, and has said he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse".[140][141] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[142] Regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Trump has stated the importance of being a neutral party during potential negotiations, while also having stated that he is "a big fan of Israel."[143] He supports Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.[144]

During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he opposed the Iraq War even before it was launched, although his public position had been unclear at the time.[145][146] In 2002, when asked whether he supported invading Iraq, Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so" and added "I wish the first time it was done correctly" in reference to the Gulf War of 1990–1991.[145][147]

Shortly before the 2003 invasion, he said: "Well, [Bush's] either got to do something—or not do something, perhaps. […] And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."[148][149]

Trump publicly referred to the war as a "mess" within a week after it began, and by 2004 he said he was opposed to it.[147] Since 2004, he has repeatedly criticized the war, especially during the primary debates with Jeb Bush.[150][151]

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

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

Foreign policy

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

In order to confront ISIS, Trump in 2015 called for seizing oil or bombing oil fields[11] in ISIS occupied areas, using U.S. air power and ground troops.[162] In 2016, Trump advocated sending 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region,[1][163][164] a position he retracted.[165] He has since argued that regional allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight.[11] Trump has also said he will dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran as president.[166]


Social issues

Trump describes himself as "pro-life" and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother.[167] The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political advocacy group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong", while NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare".[168] Trump has stated that he supports "traditional marriage".[104] He opposes the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide[104][169][170] and believes the decision should be left to individual states.[169] Trump had stated that if he were elected, he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices that would overturn the ruling.[171]

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

Social issues

Trump describes himself as "pro-life" and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother,[178] but said he is committed to appointing justices who want to change the ruling in Roe v. Wade.[179] He personally supports "traditional marriage"[104] but considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.[179]

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


Health care

Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states.[184] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[185] In October 2016 he falsely said that he had said the ACA was a "disaster" since before it was passed by Congress.[186] He said in June 2009 that he loved the idea, but questioned whether the country could afford it.[187][neutrality is disputed] Trump favors getting rid of backlogs and waitlists that are the focus of the Veterans Health Administration scandal, and believes that Veterans Affairs facilities need to be upgraded.[188]

Health care

Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states.[189] He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign.[190]


Fringe theories

According to political writer Steve Benen, unlike past political leaders, Trump has not kept fringe theories and their supporters at arm's length.[191] Political writer Jack Shafer says that Trump may be a "fairly conventional American populist when it comes to his policy views", but he has a revolutionary ability to attract free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments.[192][193]

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

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

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

References

References

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

Moving towards consensus

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

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

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

@Bastun: It just seems like there is a serious double standard among many editors (myself included, as shown by my !vote in this RfC) to want to include controversial material about Trump much more than any other president article does. This extends to the policy positions as well. The working draft should be able to remove the undue weight placed on his policy positions while still summarizing almost everything the article currently does. A lot of the removed prose in the working draft are merely quotes and statements from Trump, which can be more briefly covered by short, concise sentences. JasperTECH (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to me on several occasions, every article should be judged on its own merits, not in comparison with other articles. Seriously, this is proposing cutting "Foreign policy" to six sentences; and "Economy" to a mere two! That's ridiculous! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bastun that the sections on Economy and Foreign policy have been shortened too much and lack substance. Feel free to expand them. — JFG talk 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because your proposal to gut the article's multiple sections in one edit lacks consensus. That's not how Wikipedia articles are improved. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was reasonable consensus that this section should be summarized, then JasperTech made a proposal and I just formatted it for easier collective editing. The intent is to build a consensus version collectively, not to "impose some gutting". If this is not how Wikipedia articles are improved, then I don't know how. This approach sure looks better than starting multiple revert wars on each factoid… @Bastun, Marteau, Thucydides411, Gwillhickers, MrX, Sagittarian Milky Way, Objective3000, Madshurtie, and Volunteer Marek: Shall we work together? — JFG talk 22:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I generally prefer the concept of attacking one area at a time, in this case I support your approach as it attacks one general article problem. Gaining consensus may be difficult. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, the problem with the idealistic approach of making one small edit at a time to slowly reduce the size of the section is that it would leave many intermediate versions of this highly-visible article with undue weight placed on the parts that had not been summarized yet. Hopefully by pinging interested editors we can achieve consensus on a version that will adequately summarize his policy positions from the get-go once it's implemented. Tomorrow I'll take a look at the foreign policy and economy sections and see if I can improve them, but maybe someone will beat me to it by then. JasperTECH (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "idealistic" approach, as you call it, is how Wikipedia is designed to work and how it actually works in practice. This article isn't an exception, and you're addressing a problem that doesn't exist. Small, multiple, incremental changes does work. What you're proposing is largely unworkable. I might agree with one change and disagree with another but we're talking multiple editors discussin multiple sections, simultaneously, on a rapidly changing talk page. Were we to go this route, then when someone imposes the "consensus" version, you'd find multiple discussions opening simultaneously as editors interested in one area find their area of interest has changed. Why do we need to reduce the sizes of sections? (WP:NOTPAPER). Is the "original" version of each section above still the current version, or have there been better edits made, since? Who would make the final decision to publish? Sorry, this is a terrible idea. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: Your response doesn't seem to address the concern of intermediate versions of the article with undue weight placed on them. The method of improving the article one edit at a time may achieve the same end result, but so does working on a draft version—the same approach was used when creating the article about the business career of Donald Trump. Having a draft version also has the benefit of avoiding edit wars and helping everyone work together with cooler heads. I believe the "original" version shown in the working draft is still almost identical to the one in the article, though feel free to update it if it's not.
As for ownership, that's easy to solve—the person who enacts the edit just needs to mention all the editors who contributed to the consensus version. Anyway, check out the economic section now and see if it looks more satisfactory. The foreign policy section can be similarly expanded. JasperTECH (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote. She had more popular vote.

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

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

"Won the popular vote" is a quite common way to say it. Here is just one of many readily available using Google Search. In contrast, nobody says "had more popular vote". This has been exhaustively discussed on this page and the current language represents the consensus. The article does not state or imply that the popular vote tally has any bearing on the outcome of the election. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like received a larger share of the popular vote would be both more accurate and using common phrasing. Do you agree? The WordsmithTalk to me 22:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get what both you and Mandruss are saying, and I wouldn't take issue with either variant. I don't really know how you quantify which variant is more common, however. Dustin (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both being equally accurate, both being widely used, I see no reason to use the longer choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Mandruss, this does seem to relate to a point several supporters of Clinton point out, and the likelihood of the argument continuing seems to me unfortunately good. Maybe "received more popular votes" might be acceptable? John Carter (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should say "won the nationwide popular vote" or "earned most votes nationwide"? This would clarify the nationwide popular vote "winner" vs the popular vote winner by state who takes all state electors. Particularly important to distinguish for non-US readers who may be arguably puzzled at the Electoral College system and won't necessarily go read the dedicated article. — JFG talk 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's outside this article's scope to educate readers about the U.S. electoral system. That's why we have wikilinks; if a reader chooses not to follow them, they are actively opting to remain ignorant. We should say what our sources say. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely adding "nationwide" doesn't hurt and doesn't contradict the sources, does it? — JFG talk 22:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems superfluous, and I believe in avoiding superfluous words as a matter of encyclopedic principle. "It doesn't hurt" is never a good reason to include something; every word needs to earn its keep. One couldn't interpret "Clinton won the popular vote" as referring to the electoral vote without being contradicted by the fact that Trump is the person headed for the White House. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are plenty of sources which say she "won" the popular vote. Just as there are plenty of sources which say that "Clock Boy" "built" a clock, but we don't say that in our article, but instead we more precisely say he "reassembled the parts of a digital clock". We should, whenever possible, use the language with precision, and it is completely imprecise to say she "won" anything. "Winning" a thing requires a contest and there was no contest for achieving the most of the popular vote. I would favor saying she "achieved a plurality of the popular vote". Marteau (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a stickler for precise language, surely you won't mind me referring to the English dictionary. Of the five main definitions for "win", Merriam-Webster says one has anything to do with a contest.[4] The other four are alternative definitions of "win". Should we use the dictionary or defer to your superior knowledge of the English language? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you won't mind me pointing out that only one of those definitions applies in the given context, namely, the one with the word "contest" in it. Marteau (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many reliable sources agree that definitions 1 and 5 apply in this context. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think this is relevant/due in Trump's lede? This is not even Trump's campaign article.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I have made the change, let's see if it sticks… @Zigzig20s: It's relevant because it's being reported a lot in relation to the election. Omitting it would only raise more questions from readers. But we shouldn't dwell on it, just report sober facts. And there's only one winner, no matter how loud the loser's supporters scream "but she would have won if the rules were different". — JFG talk 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is totally undue in the lede of this article--which is about his entire life, not the campaign. HRC does not define his entire life; she is a footnote in his life. This could be included in the lede of the campaign article, but not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's a bit of recentism involved in the current consensus to keep this information (soberly) in the lead. This may fade out in a few months (or not, see George W. Bush), just like the pussy-grabbing thingie thankfully vanished a couple weeks after the vote. Isn't it fun that the Wikipedia consensus process has been strongly affirming that this particular controversy was just as lede-worthy in October as the "popular vote win" is now? In the same vein, nobody is complaining about limiting the TOC level any longer… Could this demand have had anything to do with promoting the section on sexual misconduct allegations? No neutral editor would ever think so! — JFG talk 14:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest changing "Clinton won the popular vote" to instead "Clinton earned more popular votes" which keeps the wordcount low, but eliminates the technical inaccuracy of 'winning' something not actually being directly contested. 'Earning' terminology is probably not found in tons of sources, but here are some.[5][6] And yes, I'm aware there are tons and TONS of perfectly fine sources that use the looser terminology, and say that politician X 'won' the popvote but lost the ecVote. Wikipedia ought to strive for accuracy, and saying 'earned' rather than 'won' will confuse nobody amongst the readership, whilst achieving that accuracy. As for the idea that Clinton's relative popvote performance should be elided, I would argue for keeping it here, in the biography -- it speaks to the relative unpopularity (historically speaking) of both major-party candidates up for election -- one of the defining features of this election cycle, is that both of the major-party candidates had extremely poor favorability (according to polling data (data which ain't necessarily as accurate as one might wish albeit!), and that lack of favorability is reflected in the relatively high numbers for third-parties, but also in the popvote/ecVote distinction. If it turns out to matter, in a historical sense, that Clinton got more popvotes, it will be during the 2018 midterms, when the larger dem-party mindshare earned in this cycle may result in significant movement in the House elections (the Senate map is almost guaranteed to give the repub-party some gains in 2018 however). Until then, the election-event itself certainly matters to the biographical subject here, and there is certainly plenty of coverage about Trump winning, yet the bulk of it almost without exception mentions that Trump-won-EC-but-Hillary-was-ahead-in-popvote, so in describing this major event in Trump's life, we should keep the caveat. For accuracy, though, I suggest we wikilink Trump's 'win' to the electoral college article, and wikilink Clinton's 'earned' (NOT 'won') to the criticism section of the electoral college article. I think parenthisizing the Clinton result, COULD be proper, but eliding it would be wrong -- the election was somewhat close, and the popvote-vs-ecVote difference gives the readership a hint about why. It belongs in the first or two, because winning the presidency is a defining moment of Trump's biography; whether the popvote-caveat will stay in the early bit, or will gradually fade, depends on what happens in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Until then, sources add the caveat, and we should also, just with a bit more accuracy. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources say "Clinton won the popular vote"? If so, then that's what we use. If they say "Clinton earned the majority of the popular vote" or something like that, then that's what we use. I think it's "win".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She did not get a majority of the popular vote. She got 48 point something percent, if I'm not mistaken. 38.121.94.148 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the "won" terminology is more general. Likewise, sources will say "Gore won the popular vote" or "candidates who lost the election but won the popular vote" etc. So it's perfectly fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, saying that Clinton 'won' the popvote is more generic, because the term is more ambiguous. Correct, many many sources use the ambiguous terminology. I'm arguing that this is a special case, where what the sources say is objectively incorrect in an encyclopedic sense; we can use a variation of 'earned' (rather than the commonplace but subtly flawed 'won'), since 'earned' is also used by solid sources; it is not-quite-as-generic, which makes is more accurate. See also, the discussion further down the page, where the Trump-'earned'-the-most-ecVotes-but-Clinton-'received'-more-popvotes version is being actively discussed. Although wikipedia wasn't really around in the immediate aftermath of the Bush v Gore election, didn't they have some kind of similar discussion at that article? Here is the current language: "...Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes... more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College, and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes..." Only Bush is described as 'winner/win' and Gore is described as 'received'. You could loosely say that Gore 'won' 48.84% of the certified FL popvote, and that nationally Gore 'won' 266 ecVotes, but wikipedia does not say those things because the terminology is too loose. Now in fairness, wikipedia DOES say in the USPE, 2000 article that "...the eventual winner failed to win the popular vote..." as opposed to the slightly more wordy but slightly more correct "...the eventual winner failed to get the most popular votes..." But in the most relevant biographical article wikipedia currently says "... elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide." Which says elected/received, rather than won/earned, but definitely does not use the flawed won/'won' imprecise language that the paparazzi typically utilize. The argument here is partly about whether or not wikipedia ought to use imprecise language, merely because most of the sources use that imprecise language, or if wikipedia can use slightly-more-precise language of received/earned/whatever, for the candidate that was not the winner-of-the-actual-election. There is no argument about what the sources say, the vast majority of them use the flawed metaphor of 'winning' to describe something for which there is no actual prize (whereas the 'earning' metaphor is correct in that earning support/mindshare/popvotes DOES matter in future cycles even though it does NOT actually win you any prize this cycle); thus, the argument is about whether the sources are implying something inaccurately, and whether wikipedia can do better, per pillars one and two, and if you insist also five. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, JFG - that phrasing didn't last long after "made the change, let's see if it sticks", and I thinkt 47.222 has some good points above on the use of 'won' and that the precedent in phrasing for the Bush case. (Older cases didn't mention it at all in lead, perhaps it just was not prominent.) I'll also suggest that the phrasing and adding numbers is getting a bit WP:OFFTOPIC -- going into Clinton or numbers of votes should be in the election article not the Trump article. (Sniffs a bit like WP:SOAPBOX here, as already mentioned by others in this TALK.), What do you think of following more to the Bush language "He was elected president after a close and controversial (strongly negative?) election, becoming the fifth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent."  ? Markbassett (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: Coincidentally I just pushed a general copyedit of the lead section the very minute you posted this comment. To your points:
  • I agree that we shouldn't say that Hillary Clinton "won" anything; there is no second prize and Wikipedia is not in the business of catering to the feelings of disappointed citizens.
  • Mentioning her larger share of the nationwide vote is notable and fair. Mentioning any numbers is undue because this is just Donald Trump's biography and numbers can go both ways (see my earlier remark on stats).
  • The comparison with Bush vs Gore has its limits: yes in both cases the winning candidate received fewer votes nationwide, but no 2016 was not a closely contested election (306 to 232 electors vs 271 to 266, a margin of 74 EV vs only 5). Coincidentally the winner carried 30 states vs 20 in both elections.
As part of my general copyedit, I restored the factual wording originally proposed by The Wordsmith and which looks consensual enough given this discussion: although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote. If there is constructive opposition to it (not just drive-by WP:RGW edits), we could settle the issue with an RfC, although I hope it won't be necessary. An alternate formulation could be although he received fewer popular votes nationwide than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. — JFG talk 08:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate wording seems to hold for now. Perhaps because it is phrased in active voice with Trump as subject, which fits better within his biography. Here's hoping that's settled… — JFG talk 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pro Hillary Clinton bias and incorrectness in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Titles for Trump

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

Agree. Anyway, a bunch of cameo appearances does not an actor make. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has gone ahead and removed "actor" and "author" which IMO solves the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And then someone else changed it to "real estate developer and celebrity". We are going to have to keep an eye on this. I believe we have consensus for the current wording, "...is an American businessman and politician who is the President-elect of the United States." Let's continue to defend that wording. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should limit it to "American businessman, politician, and the President-elect of the United States."- MrX 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Businessman and politician is correct. Suggest linking businessman to the subsection about Trump's business ventures (which includes his real estate stuff, his books, his television, and his personalized brand aka his monetized celebrity status). Or could put a footnote I guess. I would actually tend to agree that politician does not belong, since although he is a politician NOW he has only ever been elected to one office, and POTUS is an atypical place for a 'politician' to begin. Trump does now self-identify as a politician (since winning the nomination in July if memory serves), but I think that "businessman and 45th president of the u.s." might be how things end up, a few months from now; as a president-elect one is a politician, though, so it is okay as businessman/politician/peotus. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping it as "businessman and politician," and omitting everything else. JasperTECH (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody has added "television personality".[7] Someone please revert it per talk page. I can't per 1RR. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Trump's life before politics has been 45 years real estate and 20 years TV. Both helped him become an effective communicator and win the election, hence both labels are notable and due for his intro sentence. I would even agree with replacing "businessman" by "real estate developer" because frankly his other businesses were inconsequential distractions. — JFG talk 08:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have reverted it to "businessman and politician who is president-elect..." That is more in line with what we have done with other articles about presidents, emphasizing the importance of the presidency over pretty much everything else they have done in their life. For example, the Jimmy Carter article does not say "peanut farmer and president". The presidents who were lawyers do not have "lawyer" in their title. But let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, except for my perennial gripe about the "is … who is" construct — JFG talk 22:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This must be included as well: Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500, Winning 83% Of The Geographic Nation.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.159.75 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to include not only the statistic but also the reason why (that writer feels) it's significant: "The president-elect accomplished something unprecedented by ranking in the top three most popular candidates while maintaining a drastic county-level lead over Clinton." My opinion: Yawn. Oppose per WP:DUE, barring more RS coverage, at least in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the story originated on Inquistr, a news aggregator that looks like a gossip site. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous items in the biography where we don't express "the reason why that writer feels it's significant". Also, this is not "gossip", this is fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though Clinton's counties are a majority of the population and 2/3 of the GDP (not all counties are created equal, after all). But none of that is here nor there. Getting into the weeds of who voted how and where might be appropriate to one of the election sub-articles, but I can't imagine it being prominent enough to justify inclusion here. Dragons flight (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles County has 9.8 million residents. Loving County in Texas has 82 residents. Difficult to find meaning is such a stat. Objective3000 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the first place, this is meaningless. We do vote by states, but we do not vote by counties (some of which have a larger population that some states). In the second place, this statistic has not been widely reported by Reliable Sources and thus does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Counties are not units of the electorate.- MrX 16:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are going to make that argument, neither is the popular vote...ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – For stats lovers, there are plenty of beautifully-detailed maps at United States presidential election, 2016#Maps. For the Donald Trump main bio, this is undue. — JFG talk 16:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was reported on a national level by numerous reliable sources, including CNN, Washington Post, Fox, Huffington Post, et all and is a revealing demographic, as is our coverage of the popular vote. We have a dedicated section for Protests, which had nothing to do with election results either, yet we're being told we can't even mention this demographic in the election section, made for the express purpose of covering the election and notable topics related to it? In main articles we cover the notable facts -- if there is a sub-article for the topic, we cover it in depth, which doesn't mean we can't even mention it here. Again main articles and sub articles commonly have a certain amount of informational overlap. We can't keep blocking things in this biography simply on the basis that there is a sub-article for it. If this idea was practiced on such a basis consistently then this biography would be reduced to a few short paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not important for this article. For this article, the facts needed are: 1. He won EC. 2. More voters (2.5 million) voted for Clinton. Casprings (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winning the vast majority of the counties across the nation is a fact, and a revealing demographic, as is the popular vote. "Not important" is an opinion. If such facts are reported nationally by numerous reliable sources than we can do so. We'll need more than personal opinion to block this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about more versus less commented on by WP:RS. It is certainly true the urban versus rural divided has been commented on. See the NY Times The Election Highlighted a Growing Rural-Urban Split. However, the commentary is about the division within the US. The fact that more voters wanted Clinton has been produced multiple pieces of commentary regarding the legitimacy of the EC and the fact that the result is undemocratic. See, here or here. I do not deny that the urban versus popular vote divide is important in an article on the election. But for this article, the fact that more voters wanted someone else is important because it hits at fundamental questions about the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency. Moreover the amount of people who wanted someone else (2.5 million) is historic.Casprings (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Casprings: Wikipedia is not the place to call the US electoral process "undemocratic". This is outrageous and totally undermines your argument. — JFG talk 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with JFG here. Though you opposed inclusion, I thank you for your comments here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: To say that a process that allows someone with less votes to assume an office is undemocratic is a statement of fact. The power of the office and the amount of the difference(2.5 million) makes that fact historic and significant.Casprings (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not by definition. Which makes it a political opinion and not proper to state here. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See DemocracyCasprings (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence. Parliamentary governments are democratic. But, the people do not directly elect the PM. Governments where the head of state is directly elected by a popular vote are rare. Objective3000 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a British style first past the post election system, it would be extremely rare for the party that received less votes to elect the PM. With the type of margin in this election, it would not happen.Casprings (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it is rare here, which is why it's important to mention the pop vote in the lead. In Israel, it's not at all rare. But, were getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Casprings: At first I thought you were partisan, now it occurs to me that you may just be uneducated, which is an easier problem to solve. If you are an American citizen, go read about the history of your country. If you are not, I recommend Tocqueville's historic essay De la démocratie en Amérique (1835) where this French aristocrat praised the nascent United States for their admirable practice of democracy, which frankly the French had botched at the time (bloody revolutions, unstable republics, Napoleon's empire, return of monarchy…). The Electoral College was already there. Direct election by nationwide popular vote is *not* the dominant form of democracy, nor should it be, as it over-represents the already-dominant sectors of a polity. I could quote many faults of the US democratic system; this is not one of them. — JFG talk 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial discretion via consensus is what determines what goes in the article. This quirky piece of data has almost zero relevance to Trump's bio because elections are not decided by who won the most counties, the most cities, or the most corn fields. This is nothing more than trivia.- MrX 18:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Counties enormously vary in physical size (28 sq mi to 20,000 sq mi) as well as population (82 to 9.8 million). Some counties contain multiple cities, some no cites, New York City (not counting suburbs) is in five counties. Over 100 counties have a larger population than the state of Wyoming. Two states don't even have any counties. Historically, a county was a jurisdiction under a count. Basically, the term is too fuzzy to have any statistical meaning. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the country is comprised of counties. Consensus can't go against policy, esp NPOV. The national media, used to cite "denial" claims, didn't think it was "fuzzy" and presented the idea as a revealing demographic which helps to explain where most of Trump's and Clinton's voters reside. This info should be welcomed. So far it appears that most of the reasons to block this perspective is because of opinion, i.e."quirkey, fuzzy". We're supposed to be writing for an encyclopedia where the more intelligent and inquisitive reader comes for information, not for 'People' magazine. No solid reason has been presented to exclude this perspective from the Election ' section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can't go against policy, esp NPOV. Consensus decides what goes against policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So if five editors want to put a picture of Santa Clause in place of Trump's picture and three do not... Ho ho ho?? I don't think so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean a direct count of !votes. Wikipedia is clearly not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Objective3000 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If five editors propose to use a picture of Santa Clause [sic] in the infobox, let us know and we can go from there. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, O'3000. Yes, other factors must be considered besides 'democracy'. Like NPOV, policy overall, balance and inclusion of 'all' the important facts. Seems like several are missing in the Climate change section (and elsewhere), smoothed over by obtuse, misleading and highly opinionated POV terms like "denial". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In terms of elections, counties are not a very meaningful political boundary other than election boards. MSAs would be better imho. But I've not seen this county factoid widely covered by the RS, unlike the popular vote. On that alone, inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This sounds like a way to make it seem like the election was a blowout for Trump, when it wasn't. Not every county has the same population. According to the 2010 census, Los Angeles County, California has 9,818,605 people, while Loving County, Texas has 82 people. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An additional problem here is lack of context. Do we know how the counties split in 2012? In 2008, 2004, 2000? Do we know if this result is unusual or commonplace? Personally I suspect they ALWAYS split heavily toward the Republican candidate; that's just the nature of our electorate and our geography. In any case, this statistic is worthless without any information about whether it is historic or routine. That's in addition to the fact that it means nothing anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repubs have won supermajorities of the counties in recent decades, since they are currently the preferred party of the non-urban-core voter (broad brush here), but historically the dems were that party (e.g. dem-nom William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska was a champion of the poor indebted midwestern-and-southern[9] farmer), with *repubs* being the urban-coast-party -- NYC was a repub stronghold until "recently". The counties-won-percentage is an indicator of party strength more than candidate-strength (especially at the state-by-state-level), but can sometimes be illuminating.[10][11][12][13] But of course there are also plenty of incorrect datasets out there, which magnify the demographic differentials.[14] So to partially answer your question, in 2008 it was around~72% of the known-counties for McCain,[15], in 2012 it was around~78% for Romney, whereas in 2016 it was around~83% for Trump. I'd be more interested in seeing the totals for Reagan and for FDR, but didn't find those in a quick search (propublica only gives maps sans the datasets that I could tell). Valuable info methinks, but more for an article comparing party strengths across the years, not for a biographical article about one candidate. Of course, I also think the "by over 2.5 millions votes" stuff is pretty silly for a biography article on the opposing candidate; the numeric value is not very relevant, since if the rules were different then the campaigns would have been run differently and the outcome under such counterfactual conditions is pretty much impossible to predict.[16] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks. So that suggests that, using the three data points we have, this election merely continued the straight-line trend toward Republican dominance on a county-by-county basis. (72-78-83) In other words, nothing startling or historic. And not a statistic that has been collected, or talked much about, over the history of the country. Because (I'll say it again) it isn't meaningful. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. —Mark Twain ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pointy and non-neutral. The data can be sliced any way you wish. Let's stick with the standard, widely reported ways. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't this equivelent to the providing the popular vote? Both are meaningless regarding this election as a whole, but both help understand the election. Chase|talk 01:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the popular vote 1) has only given a different result from the Electoral College (and thus actual) result five times in the history of the Republic, and 2) is being widely, widely reported - as opposed to this county stuff, which may have been mentioned here or there when the pundits ran out of other things to talk about. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - yah, this is a noted item, particularly in trying to explain the surprise win, and noting the division oddity about the election that even in the 20 vs 30 states she won like California she lost most of the counties, and/or that even in Republican strongholds like Texas she was surprisingly close, a narrative that it was a strongly cities versus rural division. But really I think this is about the same boat as Electoral vs Popular -- all this stuff should get be in the election article and not the Trump article. But if this article is going to include those items then yes include this part too. Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — non-neutral, non-notable manufactured statistic.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Facts are neutral in of themselves. Where are you getting "manufactured statistic" from? (Answer please.) Again, mentioning the counties Trump won are an informative demographic revealing to the reader that many of Clinton's votes came from urban and inner city areas. The 'counties won' by Trump and Clinton can be mentioned with just a sentence. Why would you want to keep this perspective from the readers? So far the reasons to oppose are wholly academic and opinionated. e.g."not neutral" and the "manufactured" claim seems to be manufactured itself. Again, if this methodology continues and prevails in the narrative we'll have to tag the entire article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Gwillhickers, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Possibly also WP:FLOG. Trump won the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote by 2.5 million, making completely unsubstantiated claims about "millions" of fraudulent voters in the process. Those facts are notable and worthy of inclusion. The fact that Trump won the rural vote and lost the urban vote is worthy of inclusion. The fact that Trump won thousands of counties when many of them have populations smaller than some apartment buildings really isn't notable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : -- "Not notable" is clearly an opinion, esp since this cross section of national demographics was covered by national media. Yes, some counties have smaller populations, many of the ones Trump won do not. Remember we are writing for an encyclopedia where the more intelligent and inquisitive reader comes for neutral information. If they want a source that preaches to members of their particular choir they can go elsewhere. Anyone who is interested in where the votes came from, and there are no doubt many, would welcome this information, and it can be easily covered with just a statement in the Election to the Presidency section which is rather short to begin with. To be fair and neutral we need more than the claim that this info is "not notable" from those so intent on blocking this information, esp since there is a section dedicated to Trump's election. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as possibly well-intentioned highlighting of a "first" factoid. There have only ever been, I think, 60 (?) U.S. Presidential elections. That being the case, it seems to me that any reporter willing to expend the time and effort to find them would be able to find some "first" of some sort for either side in this election. I tend to think any such information, which relates to both candidates, is probably better placed in one of the articles on the election itself, rather than in the biographical articles of any of the individuals involved, unless the factoid is more freakish than virtually any I have seen so far, like, maybe, the first president of an alien species or something like that. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edit to opening paragraph regarding Trump's election

Propose the following changes to the opening:

ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED Text

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

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

Rationale for change.

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

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

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

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

P.S. In any case, the proposed text would need to say "nationwide popular votes". "More votes" by itself is ambiguous to the point of being confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Casprings (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – If we start quoting numbers in the lead, why not mention the electoral college margin of 306 vs 232? Or Trump winning 30 states vs Clinton's 20? Imagine the text: Trump won a whopping 50% more states than his opponent, a much wider margin than Barack Obama's two terms. The list goes on. Any number sounds immediately partisan; better keep stats out of the lead. — JFG talk 23:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposal, but I would remove "nationwide" from the original text as it's superfluous. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update While we debate, the sentence has been replaced by these two sentences: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by obtaining the required majority of Electoral College votes. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who lost the election to Trump, received a larger share of the nationwide popular vote." That's actually pretty good. MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The magnitude of the gap is only meaningful if we know how many votes were cast in total. I do not see either why we should mention the opponent's name in the lead. TFD (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Οppose per JFG and TFD. This article is about the life of Donald Trump, it is not about Hillary or the election. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While we debate, I think the proposal got put in and then overwritten already OBE maybe moot, but for the record ... make it he won while having fewer popular votes -- it's his article so phrase it as a statement of Trump, not a Hillary statement. The details about numbers and such should be in the election article, not here. Markbassett (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The details of numbers should not be here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No need for any numbers here.--Polmandc (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

New section in transition (Taiwan and conflicts of interest)

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

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

2. A section on his ongoing conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

Follow-up

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

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

When he was owner of New Jersey Generals

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

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

References

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

[17] [18] Sept 22, 1983 after the season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.80.163 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

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

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

Foreign Policy

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

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

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

If there is something out there in reliable sources that say he has devised a policy with some substance behind it, then I'm all for including it in the political positions article. - MrX 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's beside the point. I was talking specifically about his statement on foreign policy changes. I have not heard any valid reason why not include it in the article. --Reollun (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

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

Any prose Nazis lurking about?

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

  • Support for better readability (and elimination of a 117-word sentence). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have now separated two appointments (Priebus and Bannon) from the nominations, splitting the long sentence, but I think they could be included in the same list with explanation that they are appointments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need to list the cabinet positions in this article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't those go in the Presidency of Donald Trump article?- MrX 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on why regarding relevance of that material to this article. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion, oppose list – The nomination of Cabinet members is the essential activity of the presidential transition, so it deserves a brief mention in this section. There would be a lot more to remove from this article if we looked at everything that has been accumulated during the campaign… Regarding prose vs list format, both are legible but I feel that keeping it in prose will curb tendencies to expand it with minor details, because as soon as you have a bullet point per nominated person, editors will have an incentive to add details about that person. — JFG talk 09:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest, using Obama as a guide

There are huge (yuggge) potential conflicts in writing this article. One conflict is if one is a US citizen or living in the US. Another is that there were lots of opponents of Trump as well as voters who voted for him but did not like him.

Since it is hard to eliminate conflicts of interest, it may be good to mirror this article to that of Obama. If it is in that article, then a similar section would be here. I know Wikipedians often say "other crap exists" but Obama is a featured article.

One area of evaluation is the Political Positions section. That is typical in Wikipedia for candidates but not for Presidents. Besides, it could be seen as a campaign tool because political positions and what the person will actually do or think is not always the same.

Another area of evaluation is the where the Wikipedia Trump articles leads to. President Obama's WP article got the "Obama" name, taking it from Obama, Japan and defeating proposals for Obama (disambiguation). If the "Follow the Obama WP article" guideline is used, Trump should be redirected to Donald Trump.

Usernamen1 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your last paragraph is a false equivalence. Obama is not a word in the English language. This is why WP:OSE exists, advising us to avoid making such comparisons between articles. It is wise advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

No. Many of the statements have been false and easly verified as such. We don't censor Wikipedia and it seems rather important for someone who is going to be President.Casprings (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a minority school of thought that we should avoid making content decisions based on the fact that the election was impending, and I don't mind being in that minority. It would follow that we should avoid making content decisions based on the fact that the election is past. If his pattern was motivated by his desire to win the election, and it changes now, one could argue that the content is stale and less relevant, but that remains to be seen. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the election hubbub died down, several questions have been asked by uninvolved readers about this specific part of the lede, so a new discussion is probably warranted. The essential differences of opinion seem to be whether that statement should be attributed rather than stated in WP voice, and whether the perennial "or false" should just go and leave "controversial", which nobody denies. I fear a long discussion… — JFG talk 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. MelanieN, I'm really surprised that you would propose this. Falsehoods don't become truths, and their significance doesn't diminish, because the subject is becoming President. If anything, the past several weeks have shown that he continues to make false statements.- MrX 18:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which make it more historically significant.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The false things he said as a candidate don't suddenly become true now. He's continued the same patterns of falsehoods since becoming President-elect. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I changed "have been controversial or false" to "were controversial or false" because we're in a campaign context there. I saw that as an uncontroversial edit, but some may disagree, saying that it implies that the pattern has ended. I don't think it necessarily implies that and I stand by the edit while being revertable. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, by no means, like it is not time to re-think if 1+1=7 wasn't false but only "controversial", too. --SI 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : It would be nice to see the actual quotes in their entirety. Did Trump make the general statement that he opposed nuclear proliferation and later qualified that a 'couple' of countries however might be better off e.g.given the situation with North Korea? Did Trump actually make the flat out and obtuse claim that "more counties should acquire nuclear weapons"? To whom did he make this comment? It's hard to determine exactly what's going on here going by this highly partisan and clearly anti-Trump web-cite. Looks like one of Trump's many gutter-snipes were trying to make 2+2 look like 100. Are there neutral sources that outline this affair and give us Trump's first quote, in context, and then compares it to Trump's allegedly contradictory second quote, in context? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed feelings. Yes.
The claim that many of Trump's statements were "controversial or false" may act as a helpful flag to alert the reader that this is very much a C-class article. Most readers can easily spot the logical fallacy. According to CMOS, "one of the statements joined by the conjunction ["or"] ... may [itself] be false." (¶ 5.198, Disjunctive Conjunctions.) Cf. Lunsford, 4th ed., under "Flashpoints of Logical Argument: Equivocation". Illustration: Many of MelanieN's statements have been controversial or false. (As far as I know, however, none of them have been false.)
The article body cites two reputable sources for the claim that "many of his statements have been" controversial or false. Both sources are dated December 21, 2015. According to CMOS, the present perfect tense "denotes an act, state, or condition that ... continues up to the present".
Also, the article body cites Bezos's newspaper as a reputable source for a claim about one of Clinton's several adversaries. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC) 03:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I've voiced my concerns here. The closer of the first RFC stated "my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy." This has not been done. The statement is not citing an example, but generalizing the body of Trump's statements. "Many of his statements" is a judgement quantifying a large quantity of his statements as false, relative to truth. We have sources that support that view, which is fine, but there are sources that report disagreement with it as well. The sentence is expressing an opinion (or assessment) about facts and thus should be attributed - or at the least, not spoken in Wikivoice. Morphh (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – The lead is not the place to make a blanket characterization of a person's trustworthiness, in WP's voice to boot. I said that before the election and I'll repeat it afterwards, and I did say it for both candidates who were painted as liars during the campaign. The campaign section of Trump's bio is worded more carefully than the lead: it makes appropriate, quantified and attributed statements on Trump's "truthful hyperbole". Nevertheless the lead should convey some sense of the controversial and inflammatory nature of Trump's campaign. Here's a suggestion to amend the text:

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

Would this be an acceptable turn of phrase? — JFG talk 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. We went through an RfC that had wide participation, was based on reliable sources, and rebutted every argument made so far in this discussion.- MrX 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This phrase is much better. Ag97 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Trump is prone to hyperbolic statements. I have seen this stated elsewhere and was going to mention it, thx JFG for articulating my thoughts Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- One sided and highly contested claims don't belong in the lede. Generally agree with JFG's proposal here. This is certainly more neutral and doesn't try to present issues with many variables involved as absolute fact as many of the partisan "sources" attempt to do. However, I have to wonder about "unprecedented media coverage". (Even more than Obama's campaign??) Since when has the media 'not covered' presidential campaigns as much as Trump's? Who made this claim? The media? Anyway, JFG is on the right track. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no other "side" to the provable fact that Trump makes false statements. A lot of them. - MrX 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : If any 'fact' is provable, we'll need more than the say so of the sort of article that is too often used to cite these things. Re: Trump's quotes about nuclear proliferation, I asked for clarity, quotes, context, and all we're getting here is the recital of evasive and generic claims that doesn't address Trump's actual quotes. And any "fact" can be taken out of context and presented in a misleading way, as is so often practiced by the media. We'll need to see the actual quotes, in context, before we entertain the machinations of disgruntled gutter snipes and jump leap to their conclusions. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult the RfC and the sources presented therein, including Pulitzer prize wining publications that gave very specific details. Most of us are tired of proving this over and over, and we are moving well into WP:DEADHORSE territory at his point.- MrX 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you apparently can't supply the actual before and after quotes, in context, you telling me to 'go fish'. Sure. Yes, we need to keep opinionated accounts of any false statements out of the lede, and elsewhere, unless there is absolute proof, presented in context. Thanx again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Demanding more an more proof, and exceptional proof beyond what is required by our policies, for something that has been settled by consensus is tendentious, and is not conduct that is acceptable in articles about U.S. politics. Please stop doing that.- MrX 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed". As you said, it's being challenged over and over again, thus by your own words and BLP policy, it must be explicitly attributed. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently omitted "... which is usually done with an inline citation."- MrX 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"explicit attribution" is not the same as "inline citation" - they're not exclusive. A citation is always required - fact or opinion. Inline attribution, saying who "explicitly" makes the claim, is done for challenged material. Morphh (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempted interpretation of this sentence is baffling to me. It says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." - MrX 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read explicit attribution as a reference to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and separate from the accompanying footnote. The phrase "which is usually done with" means the attribution is done along with the citation to substantiate it. Morphh (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading takes me to WP:BLPSOURCES though, which doesn't contain the same "explicit" term that makes me think "inline". It doesn't help that attribution has multiple meanings on Wikipedia. Morphh (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that that needs clarification. My understanding of the word attribution is that it refers to prose like "according to". But that can't possibly mean that we can't use wiki voice for anything that has been challenged regardless of the merit of the challenge. Challenges are cheap and easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- This statement is highly biased. Every politician says some things that are false. The FBI director accused Hillary Clinton of lying, so why isn't that in the lead of her article? Wikipedia is so biased, this website is a complete joke. Ag97 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- But not only in the lead. A good example is his claim that millions of people voted illegally being "false". It's false that he has absolute evidence of it, but it's otherwise completely plausible based on self reporting surveys of illegals voting in past elections and intentions to vote in this one (between 13 and 15%). Yet in this article and other media reports, it is described as a "false claim". It is an unproven claim, but you cannot anymore claim it is false than he can assert it is absolutely true. Another his saying it's false the Clinton campaign started birtherism. They absolutely floated it during the 2008 primaries. Whether this means Clinton herself had a hand in it or not, there's no concrete evidence of that, but you'd have to assume she'd given the OK for the various fishing expeditions and leaking to the press her campaign did about Obama's origins. So again, it is not "false" - it is "disputed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Trump's concern for illegal voting certainly has a lot of basis, given the fact that outfits like ACORN (which was disbanded in 2010 after mounting public exposure) had a long history {1, 2 3, 4, 5) of voter registration fraud, who concentrate their efforts in the big cities and have been indicted and/or convicted on numerous occasions for their dirty deeds. There are recent events to consider also. 1, 2. When you consider that the Democrats stonewalled the effort to require identification for voter registration it should come as no surprise that many of Clinton's votes could possibly be fraudulent. There is already a media/source war going on about the affair. Expressing a reservation about this sordid affair is not making a false statement, and referring to Trump's reservations about voter fraud as a "false statement" is actually the false statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is, simply put, fringe-theory nonsense. No reliable or credible source anywhere supports the idea that Trump's statement "certainly has a lot of basis." To the contrary, the universe of reliable journalistic and academic sources addressing this point unambiguously describe the claim as false and without evidence. See Washington Post ("a bogus claim," "unsubstantiated"); CNN ("without evidence," "no evidence"); Fortune ("Studies Contradict Trump Claim That Voter Fraud Is 'Very, Very Common'"); FactCheck.org ("unsubstantiated urban myths"). Neutralitytalk 23:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, given the long sordid history of provable voter fraud, and the blocked attempts to require identification for voter registration, this just comes off as partisan denial. Again, referring to Trump's concerns about voter fraud as "false statements" or "fringe" are the false statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you have no response at all to the expert assessment. Let me sum up my reaction: you are entitled to your belief, but it is empirically false and should carry zero weight in deciding what content to include in this encyclopedia. Neutralitytalk 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is unfortunately a very very big difference between an expert opinion based on minimal observation in this particular case and something being "empirically false." The only way we could make such a statement would be if there were a thorough review of the matter which made basically the same statement. I am no particular fan of Trump, but I do think that statements by media prior to or without thorough investigation are a long way from being "empirical" facts. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - This has been discussed at length and no reason has been provided to change the decision. Calling people 'gutter snipes' certainly doesn't convince. Objective3000 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still waiting to see if there is a need to re-open this discussion, but I do object to the proposed wording from JFG. Where are the Reliable Sources to support the phrase "boisterous style"? If we remove "false" we should simply leave the sentence as "many of his statements... have been controversial." Or else we could qualify it with something like "many of his statements... have been controversial, and some have been characterized by multiple commentators as false". In the meantime Morphh makes a good point about attribution, and I will add something. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there have been at least a few sources discussing his off-the-cuff presentation and sometimes possibly willfully inflammatory comments. Alternately, maybe replacing "false" with "inaccurate" or something similar might work. "False" might be seen by some as more strongly indicating the willful inaccuracy of statements than the word "inaccurate" might. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The falsehoods were not just a major theme of his campaign, but also a major part of his life and career, and historically significant. Additionally, the importance of the falsehoods continues afterward. For example, the sources report that Trump's unambiguously false post-election claim that there was massive voter fraud, and that he actually won the popular vote, is without precedent in U.S. history. See, e.g., Yahoo News ("stunning" ... "remarkable and unprecedented for a victorious presidential candidate to claim widespread voter fraud"); Politico ("an unprecedented rebuke of the U.S. electoral system by a president-elect and met with immediate condemnation from voting experts," quoting Richard L. Hasen); CNN ("It's an unprecedented allegation by a president-elect."). Given all this, it should be in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given all what? Trump has concerns about voter fraud, and justifiably so. Can you show us the actual quote where Trump says there was cases of documented voter fraud, or can all you provide us are the concerns he expressed? Sorry, only provable facts should be considered for the lede, not partisan out of context sniping. Trump believes vote fraud played a role. No one can prove this, but otoh, is there proof that his concerns are, in fact, wrong? Expressing a belief is not a false statement unless you can prove it to be wrong. Let's be clear about that distinction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally a textbook example of the argument from ignorance (no, you can't make a wild claim and then demand that objectors "prove a negative"). In any case, it's clear that nothing will ever change your mind, including the universal assessment of the experts. See PolitiFact: "Experts dismissed the substance of Trump’s tweet. 'This is patently false,' said Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University political scientist. ... Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz added, '... he is simply repeating baseless claims.'" And University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket said the claim is short on basic logic."). Neutralitytalk 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People can make statements about their concerns all they like, and given the history of voter fraud in the past, expressing such a concern is understandable. Basic probability evidently escapes Mr. Masket. Trump's concerns have a basis in past events and are justified. Q. What's to stop an illegal immigrant from registering to vote? A. Not a thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I have been against the addition of this from the very beginning and my stance will not change now that he is president. --Chase | talk 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES - Unless we are going to go through all politician pages and add this comment it is not only irrelevant but extremely biased and was written for that reason. That's not even considering the fact that the source is PolitiFact, owned by Tampa Bay Times which endorsed Hillary Clinton and PolitiFact has its own history of bending the truth. Some of the claims included in the source turned out to be true. The argument that "this is a trait of his whole life" is biased and anyone exhibiting that should be blocked from editing this page because they seem incapable of separating their opinions from academic record. If this is to be an encyclopedia and not just a soap-box for the internet to shout from then all bias needs to be removed from the statement. -- The fact that this is even a matter of debate ought to demonstrate that the statement does not belong. Velostodon (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gross violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. The line but extremely biased and was written for that reason makes this a broad-based, unprovoked attack against many editors. Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This is getting so typical: Avoid the issue and fire away with accusations. Velostoden makes a very valid point and has not personally attacked anyone, and he/she certainly has not pushed the envelope of civility or violated any other guidelines. If the same few editors exhibit a continued trend to include the negative and block the positive, and repeatedly use clearly partisan sources to support their effort, then they forfeit AGF considerations and should be called on this behavior. Having said that, a general criticism about bias was made and no personal accusations were ever made as was done just now. Trying to bully editors with opposing views with such exaggerated accusations is not the way to go here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, Velostodon ignored the issue and fired away with accusations. He specifically stated that editors purposely added bias and should be blocked without a shred of evidence. You added to this because you don't like a WP:RS. Again, this is not the place to debate WP:RS. Edits like this are not usefule Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, some of the sources are clearly biased, and as such, editors have a right to express their concerns when they are used to prop up opinion. While Velostoden may have used a broad brush in reference to editors, he/she was not off the mark with the way things are often censured or selected in the article. I will say this much, calling for a block was not called for. Any issues can be resolved here on the talk page. Face it, this is a controversial topic and feelings, whether veiled or obvious, seem to be playing a role in what's allowed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss content not editors. Generally, when you start talking about "same few editors" etc. you've sort of conceded the argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - we had a huge RfC on it and nothing has really changed. The only possible alteration I can see is to generalize it to many of his current statements.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please keep bias out of the lede and elsewhere in the article. If there are facts to be presented they will speak for themselves. We have already seen accusations that Trump's warranted concern for voter fraud constitute a "false statement" and a willingness to stick this sort of thing in the lede. No thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that being reported is not the primary issue or even inclusion. The primary issue is taking a generalization, making an assessment as to quantity of lies compared to truth, and then stating it as fact in WikiVoice, like we're saying the capital of France is Paris. There is disagreement on quantity and what qualifies as a lie - we have sources that dispute the assessment. How is this not attributed in any way? You're absolutely right that Trump's difficult relationship with "the truth" and "facts" is something that's been well reported and their assessment is a valid one, but that is what it is.. a judgement, which when generalized and quantified is a disputed one. Morphh (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd also point out, Gwillhickers, that you've commented on the contributions of at least five other editors already, while also making your own contribution. That isn't necessary or indeed desirable. Your own contribution should stand for itself. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No editor, including myself, is above criticism. And alas, you have just made your own criticism about me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun may be referring to the message of the essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which I believe is widely accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let Gwillhickers comment. I don't see any badgering here or anything, just a back and forth, which is fine. Whether it's effective is another matter, but please don't say it's not "desirable", at least not yet, after a couple of comments. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "a couple" of comments, it's eight comments after those of five other editors, and is a definitely a case of WP:BLUDGEON. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There has already been an RfC regarding the sentence. The statement is an objective truth and has been repeatedly proven as such, with further sources having been added for it earlier today. It is also highly relevant given that he is the President-elect. This dispute is a textbook dead horse. AndrewOne (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎Appearances in popular culture deletion

Casprings, deleting this section may very well be a good idea. But, deleting 12,000 characters without discussion is more than bold. Objective3000 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert if you want. However, IMHO, this article needs to be squeezed. We need to summarize a good deal of the information about his business, personal life, ancestry, etc. It is just too much, given Trump’s historical significance is likely to be high. I would suggest that someone start swinging an axe and if people don’t like it, revert and discuss.Casprings (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even like such sections.:) Just thought I'd start the inevitable discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on working on squeezing the juice out of the article in the next few days (when I want a break from real work), so I am sure there will be lots of discussion. Casprings (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got the right idea, Casprings. I boldly split that info you deleted to Donald Trump in popular culture, which had been merged via AfD in 2007. I think enough has changed in the last nine years to justify it being an article now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, good idea. A shortened section can be added back to the main article. Eventually, Public image of Donald Trump will be created, and some of that will be briefly covered in his main article. (Woahh... apparently, it's been created, but is being considered for deletion. Anyway, the point remains.) JasperTECH (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Public image" would be a better place to put the section on his hair. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just FWIW, having recently read the most recent collection of issues from Constantine (comic book), the apparently reborn character Neron (DC comics) is a fairly obvious Trump pastiche, including more than once (I think I remember) referring to "the art of the deal" and also having for him really weird hair. It would probably need an independent source to point out the similarities though. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nativist?

The lead says, "He self-identifies as a conservative, and his ideology is described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist and nativist." Nativism is defined as "the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants."[19] However, I am not aware of any policy proposal that Trump has made to discriminate in favor of native-born Americans and against other lawful inhabitants such as naturalized citizens. I am also not aware that he has sought to ban lawful immigration to the United States. According to Michael Savage, "If you were to define Donald Trump's politics, you would not say that he's a nativist, you would say that he's a nationalist" (Scorched Earth: Restoring the Country after Obama, Hachette Book Group, 2016). Many sources do apply the word "nativist" to Trump, but a significant minority say that this is more of a buzzword (like "racist" and "xenophobe") than an accurate descriptor, see here. In any event, there is no significant dispute that Trump is a "nationalist" and so I will substitute that word in the lead for "nativist".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting this subtle but significant difference and updating the article accordingly. — JFG talk 07:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexual misconduct allegations" in Trump's infobox

Trump's page and Hillary's page read as you'd expect from Wikipedia these days - completely left POV, weasel words, half truths advanced as certainty when it comes to Trump, glossed over or sanitised on Clinton's page. But this gem in Trump's infobox is the kicker. Not even Bill Clinton has this in his infobox - despite actual lawsuits and a much longer series of accusations (that didn't magically appear in the month leading up to his election). Only a reference to the Lewinksi "scandal".

Wikipedia is fast becoming as "fake news" as MSNBC, CNN and the others. I know you are upset over the election results, but this is just sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the infobox doesn't need that link. Since it's generated by a template that is used by many Trump-related articles, that is an issue for Template talk:Donald Trump series, not this page. Disagree with your more general observations. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

celeb status was deleted

He is better known as an entertainer than a businessman. He has been on the TV screen for decades. Wiki used to list him as a television personality. However this has since been deleted. Request to have that restored.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Donald Trump in popular culture. For better or worse, he's much more important for his politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time man of the year

I'm guessing being declared Man of the Year by Time magazine, like Trump has been here, is probably significant enough to be included in the article, and probably even in the lede. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely in the article. I would say not in the lede. I doubt if that has been done for most previous "person of the year" awardees. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It isn't in the lead of last year's winner, Angela Merkel. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an ax to the article

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

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

Given that he has now become the likely topic of multiple articles relating to his administration, I wholeheartedly support cutting this thing down, and leaving only shorter subsections for each of the topics covered in other articles. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GOProud misspelled in two occasions

In two occasions GOProud is misspelled as GOPround.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed -
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 23:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biased headings and criticism

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

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

BlitzGregThere are differences. Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison, for Trump it was settled out of court. Trump University is not an unreasonable title, and covers its subject well. Anyway, the subject of Trump is hyyuuuge, so this article must be heavily summarized, and use sub-articles, and there are many. You´ll find a section on twitter in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, an article about the size of this one. Legal affairs of Donald Trump is not tiny either. The general thought on WP is that critisism should not be singled out to a separate section, it should be in the proper place in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Trumps tweets shouldn´t have a section, they should have one or more articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trump never made a single racist or sexist remark his entire life. The Trump university case is a nonissue. The whole business was conceived and managed by Michael Sexton. Trump admitted to no wrongdoing in the settlement. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree 100% with your last sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BlitzGreg - that would be content for the Trump University article. This article is supposedly his WP:BLP (though it's got a lot of non-biographical inserts) so should focus on his birth, marriage, children, education, career, and be about Trump personally. For other things, if they notably affected his life it would be expected to have just a brief mention here how they affected his life, and wikilink to main article... Current wanderings to the contrary oourse. Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the first sentence of the article should mention his three current titles and delete businessman and politician

I suggest businessman and politician be deleted because they are vague and should be replaced by specific titles.

1. the president of The Trump Organization

2. an executive producer of the Celebrity Apprentice

3. the President-elect of the United States

45.58.83.234 (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the lead should provide context, and I think that limiting his businesses to the Trump Organization is a bit too narrow. But it may be worth mentioning in that paragraph that he is also an entertainment personality, not only because of The Appendice, but he performed cameos in some movies, and he appeared on talk shows from Oprah to Jimmy Fallon.MackyBeth (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian involvement in lede

New article just created that really belongs mostly in the sub articles. Maybe a brief mention in the post election section, but certainly not in the lede nor an entire section of a BLP. --68.228.149.115 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=754100621"