Talk:Donald Trump

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

RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

Summary of issue

There has been debates, reverts, and contentious editing regarding the lead of this BLP (see the above talk page sections: #Accusations of sexual misconduct in lead section, #Removal of sexual misconduct allegations, #RFC:Recent allegations in lede, #Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations, #Concern about the lede, #Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign, and #Access Hollywood tape in lead section).

There are multiple objections and issues raised, but they all center around the inclusion or exclusion of allegations of sexual misconduct, harassment, assault, and crimes by Trump against a number of women. The relevant information in the body of the article can primarily be found at § Presidential campaign, 2016, which summaries the fuller article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

So far, the issues raise have been about (1) the existence of any mention in the lede and (2) the length of any such mention. Regarding (2), among those who think it should be included, some have suggested only one or two sentences be added while other suggest a stand-alone paragraph is warranted. Specific policies and guidelines raised in previous discussions include due weight, recentism, lede guidelines, potential biography of living persons violations, and adherence to a neutral point of view.

Examples of past lede edits: paragraphs, paragraph, sentence.

Need for this RfC

Current discussions are disjointed, redundant, and contentious. Some attempts at consensus-building and !voting have been relative unfruitful. It is unclear if there is consensus for anything. Unlike straw polls and other !votes, an RfC can help bring in new editors to voice their opinions and (hopefully) generate a stronger consensus. Per a request in the above section, I am making a good-faith attempt at creating a neutrally-worded RfC to assess consensus on the aforementioned issues. If you feel I have not adequately or correctly summarized the debate, please feel free to suggest clarification or changes to the background infomation. Because of the complicated nature of the issues and past discussion, please forgive my multi-question RfC. It is the only way I can see any RfC addressing the core issues and making any headway.

Questions

1. Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump?
2. If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?

Thank you for your time and input. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC opinions and discussion

• Note - I have left messages on the talk pages of users who !voted in the above closed discussion inviting them to comment on this RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1. No; 2. One sentence. Our guideline on lead sections says that the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents and as a general rule of thumb should be limited to 4 paragraphs. This article is extremely dense due to the... hm... richness of Mr. Trump's life, so some unusually extreme vetting must be done to keep the lead manageable. At this point, I have seen no evidence (such as reliable sources) indicating that the recent controversy surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct is any more biographically significant than other major controversies of the last year, including Trump University and the statements about Judge Curiel, which are not mentioned in the lead section. Therefore I oppose any inclusion at this point, and if we do include something, it should be minimal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  One sentence could go on forever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion at this time about whether it should go in the lead and if it is included it should not exceed 15 words. As of now, more than 15 words is undue weight especially given that not even the presidential debates are mentioned in the lead. There is also no justification for putting the word "rape" into the lead, nor for omitting Trump's denial of all the allegations. It can all be done in 15 words or less.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I would like to add that the lead currently refers to "rape, and child rape". This is truly outrageous crap to have in this lead. After all, the rest of the BLP says nothing about any rape aside from the alleged child rape, for very good reason. The alleged adult rape victims withdrew the charges. For example, Collins, Eliza (July 28, 2015). "Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape". Politico. As for the alleged child rape, according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities," a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show. See Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s". The Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anythingyouwant (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• No and one short sentence - Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the historic impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and the whole thing gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Bill Clinton's biography does include the Lewinsky controversy in the lead. A key difference, of course, is that Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States with a very long track record and impact, whereas Trump is a guy with no political experience who is mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. Another difference is that Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and that Clinton has not been accused of (or admitted to!) sexually assaulting an endless list of women over many decades. The comparison with the treatment of the Lewinsky case in Bill Clinton's article indeed highlights why this (much more serious) controversy should obviously be included in this article (on a guy whose credentials/public track record is nothing compared to Clinton; hence this controversy is more important for and defining of the topic Donald Trump than Lewinsky is of the topic Bill Clinton). --Tataral (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Here's my counter to the "long track record and impact" argument, and I'll pass on the rest and leave that to the closer.
      Bill Clinton - file size 186K - readable prose size per User:Dr pda/prosesize 65K
      Donald Trump - file size 327K - readable prose size 88K
      I know, I've been here before, we can get into which sub-articles about each person should be included in that comparison, but I'm passing on that too. What's clear is that Trump has had plenty of "impact", just of a different type than Clinton.
      mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. No POV in that argument! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Measuring impact by whether the article is bloated or not seems like an odd idea, and based on which policy/sources exactly? On Wikipedia, articles are supposed to be readable prose; it's not like there is a contest to make the longest article. A lot of hard work has probably gone into making the Bill Clinton article sufficiently concise. What you have found out is that Bill Clinton has a well written biography within the recommended range per Wikipedia:Article size, whereas Trump has a bloated biography (not due to the very short mentions in the lead and body of the sexual assault scandal, but due to tons of excessively detailed material on trivial stuff such as "Football, cycling and boxing", which is given far more weight than the much more prominent controversy discussed here) near the "almost certainly should be divided" range per Wikipedia:Article size. --Tataral (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Look, RfC survey sections are not for extended debates. I concede, you win. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Short sentence including denial, no more. No. Short sentence Anything else is WP:UNDUE. Editors arguing this is the most covered incident in his public life (or even his campaign) have a responsibility to demonstrate that with evidence. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• No and very short sentence - As I mentioned in previous discussions, I feel that any mention in the lead is currently undue and recentism. In the scope of this multi-decade biography, this topic is currently minor. Such discussion in the lead belongs more on the campaign page. WP:LEAD directs us to summarize the article is a balanced manner. Currently, only a very small portion of the article covers this issue. Given that, it would not seem important enough to cover in the lead at this point. If, and only if, these allegations (1) result in a conviction or (2) are cited as the primary reason for Trump losing the election, then that would make them significant enough for the lead. In the event of the latter case or consensus forms for inclusion, I do agree with James J. Lambden that Trump's denial should be included if they remain allegations (but not if there's a conviction). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yesish -- A mention should be included in the lead given the extent of claims, the extent of time period, the extent of coverage, and the extent of apparent effect. I added the "ish" as I don't think it can be summarized in the lead. It can be mentioned and the body will include the summarization. I would go for two or three sentences in the lead. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Short paragraph (ec) of two to four sentences. I have no idea where this "15 words" thing was pulled out of but it's completely arbitrary. This is by far the biggest issue of the campaign and the fact that it is still getting extensive coverage in sources weeks later justifies its inclusion and giving it more than just "15 words". But I'm actually more concerned about what is included rather than how long. Specifically the sentence should not be something along the lines "Trump denied some accusations that were made" and leaving it at that, which is what some of the editors wanted to have. Write it straight - NPOV, no monkey business. What, when, who, where and how. First the allegations and their nature, then the fact that he denied them. Both the Bush tape and the women coming forward should be mentioned. The rape allegation can be left out of the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes One Paragraph such as the current,

"Trump has been publicly accused by at least twelve women of sexual misconduct—including sexual assault, rape, and child rape—since the 1980s. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's 2016 candidacy for president; many more arose during that campaign, especially after revelation of a 2005 audio recording, in which Trump appeared to brag about committing sexual assault. He has denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation." SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Donald Trump is mainly known (especially on a global scale) for his presidential candidacy, which is completely dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. The sexual misconduct controversy has also received more coverage in reliable sources than any other topic related to Trump in his whole life. It is the most prominent issue related to Trump covered in reliable sources, and it is covered both in the article and in a lengthy in-depth sub article. The notion that such a prominent controversy should not be included in the lead is simply absurd and contrary to Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. We should have two or three sentences (two sentences on the controversy itself with a possible third sentence devoted to Trump's defence/views/denial), as in the current paragraph, because it is impossible to cover this material in a responsible manner in just one sentence, which would also come across as an attempt to unduly downplay the issue. The two or three sentences must however not necessarily constitute a separate paragraph; the reason the three sentences became a separate paragraph in the first place was that this material was placed at the end of an extremely bloated paragraph.--Tataral (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. The sources clearly support this. One to two sentences that very briefly describe that allegations have been made, with details covered in the body of the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood comments, the ensuing flood of allegations of sexual misconduct, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP. Two to three sentences should be sufficient. Whether it's added to the campaign paragraph or a separate paragraph matters very little. The coverage of this scandal has gone well beyond the 24 hour news cycle. It's being covered in a sustained fashion by major international news agencies, and has even influenced pop culture [1] [2]. - MrX 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Even if it were a single phrase, this should be a separate paragraph. But this must be more than one phrase. Main point here is that all the allegations by different women are very similar and consistent with each other and with something Donald Trump said himself on the widely publicized tape. We must tell also that he blindly denied everything. Three short phrases should be enough. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Note: Based on the responses so far, and in the spirit of BLP, I have boldly merged the standalone paragraph into the campaign paragraph. [3] I realize there are a couple of people who have argued for a standalone paragraph (specifically Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes) while some have said it doesn't matter (Tataral, Mrx) and others oppose it (Dr. Fleishmann, Anythingyouwant, Mandruss, James J. Lambden) while others don't specify (saying maybe 2-3 sentences but without specifying where). This isn't meant to be a "close" or a final wording, but a quick course correction on a highly visible BLP. ~Awilley (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• No Yes but make it very limited. Ideally just one sentence (and include the denial). The allegations are unproven and made in connection to the presidential campaign so should not be in a separate paragraph but in with the rest of the lede's presidential campaign material. However, lede material just summarizes important body content, so the content that the lede is summarizing is the content that is actually important and the content that should be used as the basis for deciding lede wording. This article is NOT Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and about 80% of the article is NOT about his presidential campaign. And ALL content is subject to BLP policy - the existence of an ongoing AfD is not an excuse for allowing BLP violations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In the light of later no reasons presented, and also after reading the content discussions further down the page, I have changed my opinion to no. Anything but no is giving an open door to endless conflict and the insertion of tabloid like claims simply for effect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• No - not in lead ...looking for real info in lead - lead is for summarizing main points of the article MOS:INTRO = best not to mention allegations that are barely covered in the article. Best to keep lead simply say "controversy has surrounded the presidential candidacy." WP:PUBLICFIGURE -- Moxy (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• No for now, but revisit as needed. If it is included, I have no opinion.--Malerooster (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• No not in the lead. Largest problem I guess is the WP:LIBEL aspect of the way it's failed to meet WP:BLPCRIME, by the lead having incorrectly presented a felony label, stating it in WP voice as fact rather than a second-party report, and that the article lower down is not saying what the cite said and also edited up the tape transcript. To me though, mostly it is just offtopic -- this is supposed to be a BLP article, and this material belongs to the campaign article or sexual allegations article. Finally -- this is a BLP so anything here should follow the additional bits from WP:BLP guidelines such as writing conservatively and avoiding tabloid. Right now this is too much sensationalism, not yet events in hand to gauge the BLP significance -- and edits may be suspect of being COI political motivated until a few weeks from now. Markbassett (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:LIBEL and WP:BLPCRIME? The lead currently states "and multiple women alleged sexual harassment ... Previous sexual assault claims ... Trump vigorously denied the allegations" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Yes. 2. As short as possible to specifically state the essential facts: The Washington Post released a 2005 recording of Trump bragging about making sexual advances towards women. Add "Trump denied the allegations," but we don't have to give Trump's full non-defense. That's what I would do, but I realize some editors would give more space to defend Trump. I disagree but would go along for consensus. I also argue that it must go in the introduction because the charges of sexual advances aren't in the Table of Contents and aren't easy to find in the body. The introduction should say, "This article discusses that incident." If I were writing it, I would put “Grab them by the pussy” in the lede. That will tell readers that it's about that incident, they're in the right place if they're looking for it. I may not get consensus for that, but that would best serve the reader. --Nbauman (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes; the whole "tape, allegations, response, media plot" trail of events, in the lede, with 2 or 3 concise and succinct sentences. It speaks to his character and attitude...to moments in his life. Buster Seven Talk 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• No - Per WP:BALASPS/WP:RECENTISM - The lead is meant to summarize the whole life and times of Trump. These recent allegations have make up so little of that life and times that they don't deserve mention. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First, WP:RECENTISM is just an essay of the personal opinions of some WP editors, not a guideline or policy. In many cases, it doesn't make sense. When you have an article about a current issue, like an election, everything is recent. Would you like to delete everything more recent than 1 year from the article? Second, according to WP:RS, Trump has been doing this all his adult life, documented by his Howard Stern interviews and the complaints of many women. His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life and the personna that he himself presented. --Nbauman (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life, you really believe that? Please don't answer, its a rhetorical question. --Malerooster (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: - WP:BALASPS is a policy. re "Trump has been doing this all his adult life" - I don't really think you have any idea of what Trump has or has not been doing his whole life. Fact is that most of the "allegations" at this point are just that. Allegations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are true, but I'm not so biased to assume they are. Unlike you apparently. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

According to many WP:RS, his sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-allegations-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html http://people.com/politics/every-sexual-assault-accusation-against-donald-trump/ and many more. --Nbauman (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: - You get that there are probably millions of RS's about Trump, right? You understand that a very, very small portion of them specifically cover these sexual allegations? You realize it only seems to you like this issue is important because you have a hard time remembering things which have occurred outside the past week's news cycle? NickCT (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: You get that the LAT and People magazine are major news media, right? I don't think there are any major news media covering the election that haven't covered Trump's sexual advances -- even the sober Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1010/Debate-fact-check-Teasing-the-truth-out-of-Trump-and-Clinton- . You realize that May 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html is longer than a week ago, right? You realize that I live in New York City and we've been hearing Trump brag about his sexual conquests since his appearances on the Howard Stern show, right? --Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• 'No'; These allegations have not been proven and are not a major part of his life. Mentioning them in the lead gives the article an anti-Trump bias. For comparison, the lead of Bill Clinton's article is much more positive and doesn't even mention the allegations about Clinton, other than his impeachment. Ag97 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• 'No... or at least, not yet.' This is why we have WP:RECENTISM. The latest political firestorm may or may not end up being a defining characteristic worthy of the lede. We can't jam every accusation into the intro simply because it's today's controversy. Revisit this issue in six months or a year and see where it stands. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - 1 or 2 sentences per WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Completely undue. Defamatory content should not appear in a BLP.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This RfC should be properly closed. Please do not change content under discussion during standing RfC. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

While it should be possible to make a mention in the lede of the allegations without infringing on BLP requirements, ongoing RfCs don't place a hold on BLP obligations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely - we have a separate article on this, which was WP:SNOW kept at AFD for pete's sake. That article is linked and summarized within this article - and linked in the infobox - so of course the lede should have at least a few sentences about it. More generally: this is something that is covered in literally hundreds of reliable sources now, there's really no excuse for not giving that coverage due weight in the lede. My suggestion would be 2-3 sentences but the important thing is that it's mentioned. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, because the introduction should summarise the main points of the article, and the allegations have been a significant element in the election campaign. A couple of sentences will probably suffice, outlining the allegations and that he denies them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1. No. 2. Short mention of allegations. – This affair is nothing but WP:RECENTist hyperventilation. If and when such allegations go beyond gossip with actual trials, then let's revisit. Note that even Bill Clinton's lead section does not mention sexual impropriety despite abundant mentions in the article itself and on a dedicated page. The lead just states he was impeached and pardoned following the Lewinski scandal. — JFG ^talk 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Minimal, and only if conjoined. The sexual allegations section takes up 2% of the entire 16,000-word article. But the allegations are 12% (57 words) of the lead. So it's a no-brainer, IMO. I'd give the topic max 4-6 words in the lead, which means it could be conjoined with other controversial issues. However, if WP starts selling and relying of advertising, like the MSM, we could go back to 12%, or up to 50%, to remain competitive. --Light show (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm not sure about any specific guidelines about allegations, but it seems totally wrong to include things such as allegations, accusations, hearsay, innuendos, insinuations, or gossip anywhere in a lead. It can turn leads into tabloid-type leads. I've seen a number of famous people resign over the years to fight off simple allegations, even before a court hearing. For instance, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, resigned, and there was never even a trial. It was a pure case of "trial by media", which IMO is possibly one of the worst effects of the readership-hungry MSM. --Light show (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, one sentence. The coverage for this instance is enormous. I frequently examine man news sources outside the US because I use those for Wikipedia work: and this incident received global coverage in a big way. Leaving it out is not an option: a paragraph, though, is undue weight. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1. Yes, 2. Up to the extent needed to adequately reflect it according MOS:LEAD. The current 3 sentences are appropriate according to the current status of findings. --SI 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to include in lead, and the current wording and length is fine. Summoned to this by bot, and I commend EvergreenFir for an exceptonally clear and well-drafted RfC. So many RfCs are murky, this one set forth the issue clearly and in a neutral fashion. The coverage, as Vanamonde93 points out, is enormous. It has dominated the election campaign. An easy call. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion. But we should only have 1 sentence because per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Furthermore, anything more than a sentence could give undue weight to the controversy since it's barely even covered in the article. WP:RECENTISM is an essay we could choose to follow if we wanted to, but since it's just an essay- there is no point in following it unless there is a very good reason why we should do so. (Summoned by bot). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, a few sentences. Yes, one sentence. Dervorguilla's detailed analysis of the coverage of this topic in mainstream media sources has changed my mind. While I might not argue for exactly 12 words of coverage, I think it should be at least a factor of two away from that ideal. The lead certainly isn't balanced in other areas (though it should be), so aiming for about twenty words should let it be covered accurately enough to avoid misinterpretation. Controversial subjects usually require more precise language, but I don't think that means they're being given undue weight.

My comment copied from below

Sources: The manual of style says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."

In my opinion, we shouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the article covers some trivial topics more than important ones right now. It will probably have to be reworked later on, since its readable prose size is 89 kB. JasperTECH (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, with two sentences. It is already clear that this issue amounts to a significant turning point in his presidential campaign, which is obviously the biggest part of his notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:LEDE. Allegations have no place in the lede. Let's also keep in mind this is a separate and different article from Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. A short sentence to the effect of "The campaign has been surrounded by controversy." or something like that should suffice. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Athenean, we already have the sentence: "Trump's campaign has received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests or riots." To clarify, are you suggesting something in addition to this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion, meets WP:V and WP:RS and can be written neutrally. But we should only have 1 sentence because per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• No this man is a 70 year old billionaire, tv guy, etc and page is about his life.. 2 week news story is not why he is famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMilos (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"2 week news story is not why he is famous" - that's not what this is at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes to include more than one sentence. The Access Hollywood tape appears to be an integral part of the narrative of how this election has unfolded, and hence of the narrative of Donald Trump's political career. It is having too many other effects in the election and political landscape to be considered just another controversy. Now, nearly three weeks later, sources report these impacts in other races [4] [5], the media [6], and the Republican party [7]. To do it NPOV justice, it should be framed as part of the election and it seems like more than one sentence will be required. It could be either a standalone paragraph or in a campaign paragraph, I think. Chris vLS (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Less than 12 9–25 words, otherwise no, per MOS:INTRO and WP:UNDUE/BALASP.

Relative emphasis, MOS:INTRO. The due-weight policy holds "for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."

Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:

§ Sexual misconduct allegations = 275 words,

Article = 14,675 words,

275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.

§ Intro = 451 words,

0.019 × 451 words = 8.5 words.

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

Calculating weight by the number of search results in five of the most reputable mainstream publications and news agencies:

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news = about 5,720 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news = about 220,000 results.

5,720 results ÷ 220,000 results = 0.026,

0.026 × 451 words = 11.7 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 1,740 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 195,000 results.

1,740 results ÷ 195,000 results = 0.009,

0.009 × 451 words = 4.0 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com: about 60,700 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com: about 3,380,000 results.

60,700 results ÷ 3,380,000 results = 0.0180,

0.018 × 451 words = 8.1 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 409 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,080 results.

409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,

0.0673 × 451 words = 30.3 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news = about 169 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news = about 5,090 results.

169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,

0.033 × 451 words = 15.0 words.

Trimmed mean = (8.1 + 11.7 + 15.0)/3 = 11.6 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A most beautiful and dispassionate argument; I applaud your research, Dervorguilla! — JFG ^talk 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I must admit - that's pretty solid. Compressing it into 12 words will be... interesting. This approach, though time-intensive, could be used for balancing the lead in other areas too. For instance, there's a sentence that mentions that his campaigns have often been accompanied by protests and rallies, but as far as I can tell, there is literally just one corresponding sentence in the article body to back it up. JasperTECH (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@JasperTech: I'll take the challenge: "After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances." That's 14 words. Add one cite about the tape and one about the accusations; done! — JFG ^talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The earlier RFC made the mistake of counting words and was widely derided/disapproved of. We are writing an article not a spreadsheet and I strongly object to going down the "exactly x words" route. Dervorguilla's analysis does not account for synonyms, for whether a mention of Trump was on "page 1" or on page b7 of a newspaper (or in the classifieds, or about a Trump property, or in a weekly recap of "the apprentice"), etc. Weight simply cannot can't be" calculated" this way. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(←)

@Fyddlestix: "Counting words" is actually mandated by policy. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... quantity of text, prominence of placement..." Adding synonyms -- in particular, the word "groping" -- does make sense, though. (So does substituting the phrase "sexual assault" for the words "sexual AND assault".)

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 4,970 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 242,000 results.

4,970 Results ÷ 242,000 results = 0.021,

0.021× 451 Words = 9.3 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 12,000 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 172,000 results.

12,000 Results ÷ 172,000 results = 0.070,

0.070 × 451 Words = 31.5 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 104,000 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 3,390,000 results.

104,000 Results ÷ 3,390,000 results = 0.031,

0.031 × 451 Words = 13.8 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 520 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,230 results,

520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081,

0.081 × 451 Words = 36.3 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 322 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 4,660 results.

322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069,

0.069 × 451 Words = 31.2 words.

Mean = (9.3 + 31.5 + 13.8 + 36.3 + 31.2)/5 = 24.4 words.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• No See Arnold Schwartzenegger, another populist politician subject to similar accusations. There is a section on sexual misconduct but nothing in the lede, because it doesn't define who he is. Thundermaker (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• No This is a WP:BLP, let's not forget. This is extremely defamatory stuff in the most visited BLP article in Wikipedia, and worst of all: it's Donald Trump! This guy is known to have sued many people and institutions of defamatory things like this. Let's not play with fire here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, one sentence. The coverage of this is enormous (world-wide), to not mention that this is a key issue would be borderline censorship, there is no need to go through a, (accused), grope-by-grope account, which is dealt with in other articles. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

discussion re editor conduct

Notice Pleace take into account that there is an AE case opened by DrFleischman against My very best wishes and DrFleischman just wrote to "My very best wishes" on his talk page: "Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint.". I'm really shocked. So as I understand, that AE-case is deliberately used to force content out of this article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus here. This is in no way acceptable. --SI 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Probably needs noting that down-page discussions have resulted in a consensus on the wording of a description of the Bush-Trump tape in the lede. See discussion closures here and here. I'm unclear how those closures impact this RFC - but I would encourage both new commenters and those who have already commented to take a look at the wording and sourcing that is in the lede currently (ie, in this version of the page). It is a single sentence (+ another discussing Trump's response) that is exceedingly well-sourced, and - after much discussion downpage - the wording of it appears to have consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's two sentences, not one, when you include Trump's response, and I don't think there's consensus on the "smear campaign" clause. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing

Awilley, I appreciate your effort to find middle ground, but no consensus seems to be forming around adding two sentences to the lead section about the recent controversy. If we end up with no consensus then we should remove this content, so could you please remove it until consensus supports otherwise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's give it a few days. Headcount is only one aspect of determining consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think you misunderstood my edit. I didn't add 2 sentences to the lead section, I took an already existing 3-sentence paragraph from the lead section, condensed it into 2 sentences, and merged it into the campaign paragraph. Take a closer look at the diff you linked. I'm sure you'll agree that there is also no consensus forming around having an entire paragraph in the lead. I'm not sure what the status quo was when the RfC was started, but hopefully it will end with something more definitive than "no consensus". ~Awilley (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Awilley: A, that edit of yours during the RfC was entirely out of process. There was clearly no consensus for your version, and consensus is required under the circumstances. Please self-revert that and let's continue to resolve via established channels. Bold doesn't mean OK. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what Awilley did was mostly a proper course correction justified by comments thus far at this page. Editors who have commented in this subsection have further tweaked it, for the better I think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well if he doesn't revert himself, I am going to. We don't adjust to whoever comments first. And you know that. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead is relatively quiescent now. If there are things about it that you dislike, let's talk about it. I'm against turning the clock back to before Awilley legitimately implemented talk page consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You shoulda thoughta that before mounting various RfC's. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a consensus against using the words "alleged sexual assault?" I can't find it. Also, this language is the direct language used by the consensus in the press. It satisfies WP:DUE and WP:CITE. There is no reason not to use that language.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably read through the Talk page too quickly before writing a summary on my recent revision. Yes, it seems that since the sexual harassment page interchangeably uses "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment," it doesn't matter which one is used. I do think that "assault" sounds more severe than "harassment," which sounds more severe than "misconduct."

EDIT: In my opinion, "assault" makes the most sense, considering that it is used 44 times in the other article (including references), compared to only three times for "harassment" and three times for "misconduct." JasperTECH (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to choose ambiguous terms that suggest Trump may have done a lot worse (rape, attempted rape) than most reliable sources say is being alleged? I don't. Incidentally, this discussion seems scattered all over this page, and it should be consolidated in the "Less obvious BLP violation" subsection, so feel free to move both of our comments there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it will make the most sense for future readers if we leave these comments here and continue the discussion down there. JasperTECH (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2

So we currently have three sentences in the lead section about the sexual misconduct allegations. Please, someone, where is the consensus for this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the material from the lead section, which keeps being re-added despite the pending RfC. Reviewing the above RfC, I don't see consensus to keep anything in the lead section about the allegations of sexual misconduct, let alone 3 sentences. Please do not re-add this material until there is consensus to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, please self-revert your re-addition of this material, which lacks consensus, before administrative action becomes necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman I utterly reject your accusations and remind you of WP:OWN. All I did was to restore material you deleted (and which I didn't add). For you to call that an edit war is frankly ridiculous. As for consensus, nowhere does it say that consensus or lack of consensus is in favour of leaving material out rather than in. Of course consensus is preferable but rather unlikely in this article. That's not an excuse to impose censorship of any criticism. Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is anything but censorship. The material is in the body of the article, and no one is trying to keep it out, least of all me. The majority of participants in the RfC above agree that 3 sentences in the lead section is undue emphasis. As for excluding material when there's no consensus, see our policy on the subject. No consensus generally means to revert back to the article before the bold edit(s), and when in doubt, exclude contentious material from BLPs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment While I assume good faith, some users seem to use veeery long RfCs as a way to obstruct the addition of any material, no matter how factual, that doesn't favour their candidate. RfCs should not be use to impose censorship on Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That is the antithesis of AGF, and is completely unconstructive IMO. All I see is that you are imposing your will against the majority of your fellow editors, regardless of your good intentions, RfC bedamned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:

• The manual of style says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
• WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved."
• The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."

The RfC should be about how much content to put in the main paragraph - not whether it should be included at all. The quotations above clearly show that the lead paragraph needs to cover the allegations at least to some extent. JasperTECH (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You are free to add your perspective to the RfC above, but this discussion is about something different. It's about whether we should be re-inserting and re-inserting and re-inserting three sentences into the lead section during a pending RfC when there's no consensus to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman,Prcc27&James J. Lambden: please refrain from making reverts that could be seen as a "1RR Editwar" towards exclusion of the material that has a long consensus to be included and a RfC that is clearly leaning towards including (17:13), it would be very "Trumpish" to deny this fact. ;) --SI 17:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Schmarrnintelligenz, where is this so-called longstanding consensus? Wikipedia is not a democracy so we don't go by majority vote, and even if we did, a majority of RfC participants are against including 3 sentences in the lead section. I am in fact about ready to take this to ANI or AE for those who (collectively) repeatedly reinsert controversial material into a BLP without consensus, and those who (collectively) repeatedly falsely cite some mysterious, unwritten consensus. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than pre-election POV pushing and disruption. Please convince me otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman's assessment. We are talking about the LEAD here folks, where it was boldly added and reverted and discussion was started and I guess continues?!? There is NO clear consensus for inclusion in the LEAD, full stop, so we should default to the previous versions. Folks can quote WP:LEAD all day, but it comes down to editorial agreement/consensus. --Malerooster (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to interject that while I favor inclusion of the allegations in the lead section, and have opined to that effect in the RfC, my general feeling is that such things should be excluded pending conclusion of an RfC, per our general attitude toward BLPs. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Good points. But it's also worth noting that this single RfC about sexual allegations only, is already 6,600 words long, yet it concerns a subsection only 2% of the article body and isn't even in the table of contents. The article has numerous other controversies with much more commentary, all unrelated to sex, but none of which are mentioned in the lead. This obsession with sexual issues appears to be intent on equating Trump with Jimmy Savile, whose article was 38% about sexual issues. The implication from this debate is that merely making a public allegation against someone is all it takes to place that allegation in the lead, and thereby undermine the neutrality of a bio with MSM news and soapish commentary. Leads are too important in massive articles and should be heavily monitored to comply with BLP guidelines, not those used by tabloids. --Light show (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we please reserve these types of arguments to the RfC above? This section is about what to do in the short term while the RfC is pending. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's not re-litigate the underlying passage. I was commenting on what to do while this RfC was pending. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• This material should remain out of the lead until the RfC closes, or there is a clear consensus (at least 67% in favor, after discounting !votes that do not cite a policy-based reason. {Currently, I see one !vote on each side of the dispute that would be almost entirely discounted}).- MrX 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• According to the previous section (RfC itself), there is consensus that the content should remain in the lead, although not necessarily as a separate paragraph, or at least this is my reading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled that reading, though others are entitled to the opposite, and I think there's no doubt that consensus is against having three sentences in the lead, as you have re-inserted three times during the pendency of the RfC. The whole time you ignored my repeated good faith inquiries in this subsection and the one immediately above. This is known as disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not a BLP violation as something extraordinary well sourced, highly notable and already described below on the page. It is generally accepted that we should not change version of text under discussion during standing RfC. Repeatedly doing so is indeed disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for this third sentence you inserted: "Two sexual assault claims, made against him prior to the campaign, also received increased media attention." This wasn't in the BLP when the RFC began, there's clearly no consensus to have a third sentence in the lead about the general subject, this sentence refers to stuff that has gotten relatively little press coverage, and the allegations discussed in this third sentence were all withdrawn at one time or another, though some of them are subsequently revived.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC. Strictly speaking, any modifications of the last paragraph in intro of this version is a violation of the RfC guidelines. But OK, some people improved this last paragraph (according you your suggestions!) and made it more neutral and less visible by placing it in the end of another paragraph. But you demand to remove this completely, even before the official closing of an RfC. This is not the way to go. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't demanded that, and have taken no position about removing it completely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus to include this material, as established numerous times over the last two weeks. There may perhaps not be consensus for a separate paragraph, but the current short mention at the end of another paragraph that has been stable over nearly 2 weeks should not be removed without any consensus. Also note that we don't count votes here; what matters is the strength of policy-based arguments. A removal of very well sourced material because it doesn't favour one's preferred candidate in an election is wholly inappropriate. --Tataral (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The added material is clearly undue, as the tag indicates, and has obviously corrupted the lead, IMO. Allowing the addition of a single dated incident, supported by wikilinking to other articles based on allegations and controversies, violates many BLP guidelines. My own concern is not related to guilt or innocence so much as the corruption of WP guidelines. I also wonder how many, if any, of the editor-voters who insist on keeping the sex topics in the lead, despite the allegations being just 2% of the body, are U.S. editors. There would seem to be more worrisome problems in other places than this obsession with a kissing and groping candidate from another nation. --Light show (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Please note: There is a relevant, pending complaint to enforce arbitration remedies at WP:AE#My very best wishes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Helpful interim edits

The WP:RFC guidelines do say it's OK to make helpful edits to content under RfC discussion. Question: Does anyone here see this one as unhelpful?

'Trump bragged about...' -> 'Trump jokingly bragged about...'

References

The word banter means "animated joking back and forth." (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) So "jokingly bragged" is a reasonable paraphrase of "bragged as part of this banter". Alternative wording:

'Trump jocularly bragged about...'

The subject made the clarification about "banter" in an authoritative press release and was quoted by the Washington Post in its breaking story; to me, this looks like it would meet all the WP:BLPSELFPUB criteria. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This would be very inconsistent with the majority of RS (which mention neither "jokingly" nor "banter"). And given Trumps well documented, easily verifiable propensity to fib there's no way we should be giving his own excuses more weight than a very large number of RS that say something different (although we could certainly note his perspective I guess - it just shouldn't be treated as factual). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is decidedly a minority view, and it doesn't help that it's the subject's own view (spin). We would also want to consider what reliable sources have had to say about this press release. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix and Nomoskedasticity: Thanks, and you're 100% right about their not mentioning "jokingly". Indeed, many don't bring up Trump's statement at all. Of those that do bring it up, however, the vast majority actually mention "banter" (usually citing Trump's phrase, "locker-room banter"). Indeed, you'll have trouble finding even one mainstream source who would assert that it wasn't locker-room banter -- the polite term for "bullshitting". (bullshit, vb. "To lie or exaggerate to.") Trump acknowledges he was exaggerating to Bush; most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating to Bush.

So at this point it looks like there's nothing to worry about: We can just go ahead and add "banteringly". (Do let me know if you come up with anything interesting, though.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to that - you and I must be looking at very different sources because the suggestion that "most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating" appears completely unfounded to me. To me it appears crystal clear that most professional journalists have taken Trump's statements very seriously, and the 15 women who've come forward to accuse Trump of doing exactly what he said he had done on the tape suggests that this was very far from "bullshit" (NB: the media has obviously taken those women's claims seriously too). We can say that Trump says this was banter (and properly source that statement), but we can't say that it was banter (much less "bullshit," or a similar synonym) - because most sources suggest that it was actually a pretty accurate description of things Trump has done and how he behaves. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not helpful, and discussion of the language used if we do include something is already ongoing below in the section entitled "Language in lead section about sexual misconduct." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 3

We currently have two sentences in the lead section about sexual assault. I don't see consensus for this. Can someone please point me to it? Or do I have to list each and every editor who has violated active arbitration remedies by restoring content without consensus? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think an early close to the RfC would help? It's been running for over 2 weeks now, and could provide some sort of guidance. ~Awilley (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be helpful. The last time I requested an early close I got slapped, so I'm not going to do it myself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes an early close would be very helpful, or at least an evaluation of the consensus so far, by an involved editor.- MrX 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean UNinvolved... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes! MrX is distracted as usual.- MrX 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The RfC process appears to have stagnated, in spite of some consensus on some questions seemingly being reached. The process as of November 6 has become protracted, unduly cumbersome and -- disturbingly -- convoluted in labyrinthine nuance variously attracting especial degrees of ongoing and exceedingly superfluous analysis; the situation is in my view potentially obstructing realization of the consensus the RfC was designed to achieve i.e. it is arguable RfC at present is self-defeating to some extent and/or, at the least, self-serving insofar as a consensus does not appear any closer to being represented in the article proper.

Good faith edits with reference to WP:NPOV are increasingly reverted on account of extant RfC processes alone. Contentious content in the lede -- arguably though not necessarily representing a somewhat extreme end of the very spectrum from which consensus (that is to say the interim results of another RfC) is or has previously been drawn -- remains in situ in the lede while circular arbitration in the guise of this RfC paradoxically "guarantees" it remain there, and this is an altogether troubling state of affairs. Artifacts of these RfCs interacting with eachother appear then to contravene neutrality-in-general, for it would be preferable (surely) to exclude from the lede material that is subject to arbitration/RfC if the latter and unresolved RfC pertains to inclusion within that section - regardless of whether or not the content itself reflects consensus(!)

Clearly a tension exists, for notwithstanding the RfC vis- the content itself reflected, at least for a time, a consensus toward including the content verbatim in the article at all, the current RfC even in its present quasi-"non exhaustive" state appears to reflect a growing consensus that aforementioned content be excluded from the lede. Whomever is responsible for producing a remedy to this circumstance ought be circumspect of this tension, for it is potentially biasing, and a fortiori an excellent reason to at the very least suspend the content's appearance in the lede until a degree of consensus is reached and endorsed by an adjudicator in the form of making a binding or partially-binding edit. For these reasons I contend analysis by a team of administrators vis- prevailing consensus be executed as a matter of priority.

If that can not be achieved because "RfC is not a vote" then it ought be put to a vote instead. (and I apologise in advance if in so making this suggestion I open a Pandora's Box, but in my defense the status quo has no inferior, not that I can see...) I concur with the sentiment the RfC process vis-a-vis the "controversies in lede" has exceeded due tenure and indeed that practical inertia and a problematic (at times invidious) editorial predicament arising thereof are both real and extant phenomena which require to be addressed as soon as practicably possible. I will attempt to escalate awareness of this "Elephant in the Room" without, I should hope, invoking an RfC of an RfC which in furtherance to causing tedium would ironically defeat such a veritable attempt to break the cycle of circularness now inherent in these proceedings. sabine antelope 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I do not quite understand what you are trying to say, though I did see that your (wordy) edits to what I think was well-established text were reverted. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have pointed out what I believe to be innocent processes that are emergent and by-product of concurrent RfC's which, to some extent and to the detriment of the editorial process, overlap. These processes are complex but also simple if one appreciates they are born of a bureaucratic process which has become complicated because the outcome of the second (and current) RfC (include content in lede?) potentially co-varies with and may become biased by the outcome of the first RfC (include content as it is currently worded?). I am additionally concerned that the latter RfC appears to be inert insofar as a "consensus" de jure has not been agreed upon i.e. the RfC is not closed, which is problematic given:

1. The contentiously-worded (though from prior RfC, reached by consensus) content remains in situ in the lede while RfC continues (perhaps perennially),
2. A de facto consensus does appear to have emerged in this talk page which actually leans against including the material in the lede, and
3. Indeed a number of editors are now expressing the view that the current RfC be closed and concluded.

On the question of your final remarks whereupon you blunder into seeming [ad hominem], well, of course my reasons, and the reasons of other editors of the English Wikipedia - are at least partially editorial in nature. If editorial capacity becomes diluted in (and/or thwarted by) excessively bureaucratic process that is flawed and seemingly unchecked then that is an even broader matter, even more of a concern, a fortiori the concerns I and other editors have raised, an even better reason to urge those with due capacity and responsibility to act. What I have done is called for action, such that editors may -- in furtherance to acting with regard to consensus -- act in the first place. I can make no further attempt to appease your incomprehension, unless of course you have the ability to arbitrate or, perhaps, comment meaningfully. sabine antelope 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I made only two remarks, so I assume you think both are somehow ad hominem--that's great that you think that, but it does not matter so much to me. Let's see if your commentary here gains traction. My incomprehension, by the way, is easily appeased, I think. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure request

FYI, I have requested an RFC close here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

At 16:53, 10 November 2016‎ User:Mlpearc removed and archived the last part of this discussion -see Link for Language in lead section about sexual misconduct. It appears that a consensus was reached concerning the language to be used in dealing with the sexual allegations in the lead section. Discussion(s) was closed by Drmies CBS527^Talk 03:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Cbs527, the discussions there were apparently separate from the RFC. Those discussions (which were scattered around the talk page until refactored together by the closer) were relatively sparsely-attended, and were about such narrow topics as whether "Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women..." should be changed to "Trump privately bragged about his capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women due to his fame..." (the consensus was "no"). The RFC needs to be closed, and so I am requesting that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal re: "groping"

As editors we need to reflect the content of Reliable Sources. I propose the following:

"Trump was, in 2005, caught on audio tape claiming that, because he was a "star", women allowed him to kiss them and also would allow him, if he chose to, to grab their "pussy"'.

That is an accurate reflection of what he said. What we have now in the lead is an inaccurate and exaggerated reflection. KINGOFTO (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reflection of what he said. He never said "if he chose to" and he never said "grab their pussy"—he said "grab them by their pussy".- MrX 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy." does not translate into "Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women,", I can not accept that many editors really believe that the word "forcibly" belongs in there which is why I think we have a real neutrality issue. KINGOFTO (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If the sources say "forcibly" then we use "forcibly".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "grab" certainly implies "forcibly" - without the consent of the woman. If she consented, he wouldn't "grab" it, he could feel or caress or (whatever term you want that implies consensuality). Look up the definitions of "grab": "grasp or seize suddenly and roughly"; "to seize suddenly or quickly; snatch; clutch". That's forcible by any interpretation. Also, adding "if he chose to" is putting words in his mouth; his language was a lot more straightforward than that. This kind of change has been discussed above, but the argument that "he SAID he could do it but didn't mean to imply that he actually DID it" has not proven to be convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There's actually 3 possibilities: (a) he was bragging only that he could do it, (b) he was bragging that he did do it but actually he didn't, or (c) he was bragging about something that he actually did. The conversation doesn't make much sense if you think it's (a).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. "I don't even wait" --> he does (has done) the things he is bragging about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He clearly stated that he DOES kiss women right away, as soon as he meets them. In the very next sentence he said women "let you" grab them by the pussy if you are a star. The notion that he switched in mid-brag from talking about things he admittedly DOES do, to talking about things he THINKS HE MIGHT be able to do, stretches credibility to the limit. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Clear your heads. He never confessed to grabbing anything. He boasted he could do so if he wanted to, based on his star status. IHTS (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind producing a couple of reliable sources that support such an interpretation? Thanks.- MrX 12:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we rely on the full transcript on the tape itself and not on "interpretations" from sources which themselves are clearly biased exaggerations of Trump's literal words, indicating what they think Trump meant. This is a major BLP issue and we need to be very careful to not unfairly malign Trump or participate in a sort of pile-on along with politically-hostile media sources. Trump's literal words amount to an admission that he would spontaneously kiss women without asking their permission -- a fair wording is nonconsensually, but not forcibly. He also stated that women "let" stars or celebrities "grab" their genitals. He did not explicitly refer to himself in first person terms on that. In any event, we can find many uses of the word "grab" occurring in sexual contexts that clearly do not refer to forcible or nonconsensual sex. An aside: I am writing from France and understand well that US media is monopolized and in this election displays a bias against Donald Trump. That said: Repeating subjective interpretations of the tape's content rather than the literal content of the tape itself does poor service to readers of this site.

According to WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

The strictest caution must be applied to this article and I feel editors with political bias against Donald Trump are not exercising that level of care here. Adlerschloß (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, interpretation of the tape are what we should be using, almost exclusively. See WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.- MrX 16:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NOR

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

The present wording in the article's lead is an improvement but still insinuates a subjective interpretation of the primary source. And secondary sources have reprinted the primary full transcript of the tape outright. Adlerschloß (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The only way we could use the primary source (the transcript) is to quote the entire transcript which is not practical, especially in the lead. The content in the lead should be based on a few impeccable sources and should include their analysis. Here are a few: [8][9][10][11]. Common themes in these sources: lewd, vulgar, bragged, groped, kissed, etc..- MrX 21:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The tape would appear to indicate that he thinks women allow him to do this. In no way can we suggest that women actually are okay with this. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No. But we can certainly indicate that he SAID women are okay with this. Because he did, explicitly. "They let you, because you're a star." --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's what happens when you try to insert "controversial" BLP stuff[12]. "Nope". That the "GTBTP" thing is in the lede of this BLP article speaks to the tremendously biased and unencyclopedic editing here. Very sad. Doc talk 12:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Go make that argument at talk:Hillary Clinton if you like, but I recommend keeping your theories about bias and injustice to yourself, lest you become sadder by the realization that over-the-top rhetoric is rarely persuasive..- MrX 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be focusing on what reliable secondary sources are saying he said, and not on our own original analyses. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman When that presents only a single position, or states it in WP-voice as a fact rather than as second-person POV, it fails WP:NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views". See also the WP:BLP guidance, including the Adlerschloß quore above about conservative language and not being a tabloid, or see WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE examples that would lead one to avoid the "messy" words and be careful to say "alleged" and to also report any denials. Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tell me, then, what are all of the significant views--as supported by reliable secondary sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like there wouldn't be any disputes over neutrality if such sentences were taken from reliable sources and not tweaked around to fit an agenda. Although, unless such allegations have been verifiably proven, while such information could certainly remain in the article, perhaps it may not be entirely suited for the article's introduction. –Matthew - (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy post:

sources supporting "being able to"

"Trump said he tried to 'fuck' a married woman and bragged about being able to grope women because of his 'star' status." Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump issues defiant apology for lewd remarks -- then goes on the attack", CNN (October 8, 2016). ".... comments Trump made in a 2005 'Access Hollywood,' where he bragged about being able to force himself on women against their will because of his celebrity." DelReal, Jose and Johnson, Jenna. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/trump-threatening-nearly-one-dozen-sexual-assault-accusers-vows-to-sue/ "Trump, threatening nearly a dozen sexual assault accusers, vows to sue"], Washington Post (October 22, 2016). "a leaked hot mic conversation in which the Republican nominee bragged about being able to touch women because he is a 'star.'" Diaz, Daniella. "Trump: Clinton is behind sexual assault allegations", CNN (October 19, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and kiss women" Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump: I'd 'love' to fight Biden", CNN (October 26, 2016). "he bragged about being able to grope women because he is a celebrity" Diaz, Daniella. [http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/joe-biden-anthony-weiner-emails-hillary-clinton/ "Biden on Weiner: 'I'm not a big fan'"], CNN (October 29, 2016). "The leak of a 2005 hot-mic video two days before the second debate in which Trump bragged about being able to grope women led to Clinton’s biggest single-day gain of the past four weeks." Tartar, Andre and Tioruririne, Adam. "Trump, Clinton Double Down on Their Strategies: Final Debate By the Numbers", Bloomberg News (October 20, 2016). "remarks Trump made in a leaked 2005 conversation, in which he bragged about being able to grope women because of his fame." "Retired Military Officials Condemn Donald Trump Over Issue of Sexual Assault", Fortune (October 18, 2016). "last week’s release of a 2005 video in which he bragged about being able to exploit women sexually." Langley, Monica. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-angrily-denies-allegations-of-groping-points-finger-at-media-and-clinton-campaign-1476384833 "Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton"], Wall Street Journal (October 13, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and otherwise touch women without consent or consequences." Lesniewski, Niels. "Heck Hopes to Mimic Reid in Nevada But for GOP", Roll Call (October 15, 2016). "he bragged about being able to 'do anything' to women 'when you're a star,' including 'grab them' by the genitals" Jaffa, Alexandra and Gutters, Hasani. "Rudy Giuliani on Donald Trump's Crass Comments: 'Both Sides Have Sinned'", NBC News (October 9, 2016). The accusations come after the release of a 2005 tape earlier this month in which Trump bragged about being able to grope or kiss women due to because he was a celebrity. Savransky, Rebecca. "Trump: 'Nothing ever happened' with accusers", The Hill (newspaper) (October 15, 2016).

Thanks for your consider. IHTS (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There's also all of these which support the wording currently in the article though. Personally I think the sources I listed have considerably more weight than some of what you've listed here - like rollcall & thehill. My research suggested that most RS don't use the "being able to" phrasing, but rather say that Trump "bragged" about doing the things he talked about. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a bit vexed about what to do here. The sources listed by Dervorguilla by and large meet our reliability criteria. So I guess the question is whether they conflict and must be balanced or whether they're technically consistent. I don't have an answer to that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is an interesting selection there, Ihardlythinkso. Admittedly, it's made to look a lot longer than it actually is by citing multiple articles from CNN. The selection of sources from Dervorguilla shows that sources that say "being able to" are in the minority. Still, I have another idea for compromising – change bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women to "bragged about his sexually aggressive behavior with women." After all, in the tape he did talk about trying to have sex with a married woman. Thus, regardless of whether his words are interpreted as being able to grope women, the "sexually aggressive" statement remains true. I know this is less specific, but it's preferable to to misleadingly changing the statement to a theoretical matter when Trump did in fact relate his experience trying to move on a married woman. JasperTECH (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't the recent discussion closures here and here kind of make this discussion moot? Seems like the issue was being discussed in way too many different talk page sections simultaneously. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks stupid and really non-eventful in the scope of the man's life. A ridiculous smear that remains as if it defines his biography. "On October 7th..." blah blah blah. Y'all are pretty naïve to think that this truly belongs in the lead of this BLP. It's not the true "bombshell" that it was designed to be. Get real. Doc talk 06:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's your position, then stay civil and cast your !vote in the RfC above. This discussion is about making the language neutral and verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Neutrality issues

Dr. Fleischman said neutrality issues are required for a POV tag; here are some imo.

1: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" The inclusion of the word "false" is obviously not neutral

2: "audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women" the recording does not have Trump saying he "forcibly" did anything nor that he actually groped women. the recording said that because he was a star, women allowed him to kiss them and that he could grope them if he chose to.

3:"A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."[34]" an obvious neutrality issue: This statement infers a retaliatory analysis and adds nothing to the BLP

4"Trump's candidacy has been described as something around which the alt-right movement has coalesced,[259] together with its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.[260][261]" Another neutrality issue

5 "at least 15 women[384] came forward with new accounts of sexual misconduct including unwanted kissing and groping" the word "accounts" infers not debatable...the word "claimed" should be used

6:Immigration policies The section is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration and the misrepresentation of that is a major neutrality issue.

7:"He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy" The source says "linking Cruz’s father to the man who shot President John F. Kennedy and in no way says his father "may have been involved in the assassination" KINGOFTO (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On the first one, there was a HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [13]. So that's not going to fly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Second one is based on reliable sources and has also been discussed to death.

Third, fourth are just your basic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is well sourced and attributed. You can't just call something you don't like "a neutrality issue". You have to show that it is not based on sources or that it misrepresents sources.

Actually the same thing for five, six and seven. You are mistaking your own opinions for "neutrality". Bring sources to the table and arguments grounded in policy or the tag is spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And oh yeah, there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says:

" Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag atop this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RFC or a section tag or an inline tag."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Trump is actually known for using a much larger percentage of false statements, as independently examined by fact-checkers, than most other politicians. These are three references cited by the article: [14][15][16]. All these false statements are a big reason why he has received so much free media attention, which is also described by the article.
2. This has now been changed to nonconsensually, which I think solves this problem.
3. I just changed this to opined.
4. This is just true. Check out the sources. I think white-supremacists could rightly be called the alt-right. However, if you can think of better phrasing, go ahead and improve it.
5. I altered this as well from claims to allegations.
6. It shouldn't be titled Illegal immigration policies. That would be long and probably even more biased. It's in line with how other politicians' policies are described.
7. The definition of the word "link" is "a relationship between two things or situations." I don't see how this is misconstruing the sources.

Thanks for bringing these up. The article will be better as a result. The NPOV tag, however, should not be reinstated. JasperTECH (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On 2, sources actually use the word "forcibly" [17] so we should follow the sources on this.

I also changed "alleged" back to "accused" for the same reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's swell, but @Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, and Nomoskedasticity: do you understand that headlines are not reliable sources? Politrukki (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the accusers did say that he "forced" his tongue down her throat [18].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? The exact same wording appears in lots of sources:

Sources that say "forcibly"

Molly Redden, "Donald Trump 'grabbed me and went for the lips', says new accuser," The Guardian, October 16, 2016. "On its release, the tape quickly unleashed a cascade of accusations from women who have said Trump forcibly kissed or groped them, or reached under their clothing without asking." Kurtis Lee, "Another woman alleges Donald Trump grabbed and kissed her," Los Angeles Times October 15, 2016. "Heller is the ninth woman to come forward in the past week with allegations that Trump groped or forcibly kissed them before he ran for president last year." Harriet Agerholm, "Donald Trump sex claims: Porn star Jessica Drake becomes 11th woman to accuse Republican of unwanted advances," The Independent, 23 October 2016. "The porn star and sex educator is one of at least 11 women to make claims that the Republican nominee groped them, forcibly kissed them or made inappropriate remarks." Trip Gabriel, "Abandoning Donald Trump and, for Some Women, the G.O.P., Too," The New York Times, October 27, 2016. "Increasing numbers of Republican women have turned on their party’s male leaders for defending Mr. Trump against accusations that he groped or forcibly kissed more than 10 women." Amanda Sakuma, "Donald Trump Surrogates Have Their Own Baggage With Women Voters" NBC News, October 26, 2016. "newly unearthed audio recordings showed Trump bragging about forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals." "US presidential debate recap: Polls split on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton won poisonous argument," The Telegraph', 13 October 2016. "In what was one of the most negative and acrimonious debates in US presidential history, it was a matter of minutes before the lewd tape, in which Mr Trump brags about "grabbing p----" and forcibly kissing women, was brought up." Jonathan Easeley, "'We Have Substantial Evidence of Lies': Trump Lashes Out At His Accusers, the Media," Fox News, October 13, 2016. "In reports and first-person accounts recorded in The New York Times, People magazine and The Palm Beach Post, four women have accused Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, of forcibly kissing them or aggressively touching them against their will." Tracy Jan, "More women accuse Trump of aggressive sexual behavior," Boston Globe, October 14, 2016. "Trump has been confronted with a slew of allegations of sexual misconduct over the past week, starting with a Washington Post report of a 2005 tape featuring him bragging about forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals." Nolan D. McCaskill, "More Trump accusers come forward," Politico, October 14, 2016. "the real estate mogul can be heard boasting about forcibly kissing and groping women with impunity because he’s “a star." Joyce Chen, "Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential Running Mate, Mike Pence, Is ‘Offended’ by Candidate’s Comments About Nancy O'Dell," US Weekly, October 8, 2016. "Trump issued a video statement on his Twitter account late Friday evening in response to the footage, which shows him bragging to former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about forcibly kissing and groping women." Monica Langley, "Donald Trump’s New Attack Strategy: Curb Clinton Vote," Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2016. "on Friday, all attention turned to the video of Mr. Trump’s talking about groping women’s genitals and forcibly kissing women."

Just a selection for y'all to read (there's lots more). The foot-dragging on this is getting pretty tiresome. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? With respect, I think you did it implicitly when you reinstated unsourced content (while removing another piece of unsourced content). Since Volunteer Marek's edit summary said "since sources actually use the terms "forcibly" and "accused" not "non-consensual", I assume the only purpose they added WaPo source was because they wanted to use word "forcibly". One would expect to find word "forcibly" in the WaPo article, but I did not find it, hence I made a technical edit in order to enforce WP:V. It would be okay for an editor to say that they are paraphrasing this and this source; then we could discuss how faithful to the source that paraphrase is. I'm not saying that we must use the exact words our sources use – sometimes it's the best course of action, sometimes it isn't – but it's a whole different matter to imply that we use the exact wording when we don't.
How many of those sources are cited in our article? I can't find a policy that says we can cite a source without citing it. If there are sources that you think are representative of population, go ahead and cite them using inline citations. If "forcibly kissed" is properly cited, I see no reason to object that wording, at this point. Politrukki (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Correct. "The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings: ... [2nd of 3] The creator of the work (for example, the writer)." WP:V. Here, the "source" of the headline -- its creator -- is some anonymous headline-writer. As a courtesy to the cited source (meaning, the article writer), we ought to use his terminology, not the headline-writer's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, and Nomoskedasticity: As far as I can tell, I hold the same vision of this article as you do, but I'm just striving to find a middle ground that will convince the group of editors who don't want this statement in the lead at all to change their minds. Having a concise, neutral statement is a good start.

All in all, it's not a huge deal whether the article says "forcibly" or "nonconsensually," or whether it says "allegations" or "accusations." One of each word is used verbatim by the sources we cite, while the other ones sound softer and less editorialized while conveying the same meaning. Some editors may see the mainstream media as liberally biased - read this Wikipedia article for more information. If that's somewhat true, then we follow the policies for biased sources. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says: "Another approach [besides in-text attribution] is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual."

It's not necessary to write statements that use the exact words our sources use, as long as whatever words we use instead have the same meanings. JasperTECH (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and JasperTech: Given all the controversy about this claim, I think it would be helpful to include the original language in a ref quote to facilitate verification. I've accordingly added a second citation with a short ref quote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC) 05:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly endorse this. Verification was the sole reason I included inflated (I expected them be shrunk later, but I should have prepared for an emergency landing) quotations in |quote= parameter. I also explicitly endorse using citations, i.e. <ref> tags, in the lead at least until there is consensus on the wording per WP:V ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."), and per WP:LEADCITE ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.")
If citations should be omitted per WP:LEADCITE, we must not forget that the lead should summarize the body. If there's a great discrepancy between the lead and body, something is wrong. Politrukki (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly", and so should we. The same applies to "bragging" (see #"Talked" versus "bragged". It's getting a little tiresome seeing editors who don't grasp our policies or basic research skills, trying to scrub the meaning from a set of simple facts that have been widely reported. I agree that using direct quotes of the sources in the citation template is a good idea for verification. I also have no objection to including footnote citations in the lead as needed.- MrX 14:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misinterpreted the amount of debate happening about inclusion of the sentences. If the majority of editors are fine with using the words the sources do, then I'm not going to complain. The inline citations are excellent - thanks Fyddlestix and Dervorguilla! JasperTECH (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with paraphrasing, as long as we use words with the same meaning. For example instead of "bragged" we can use "boasted"; we should not use "talked" because they don't mean the same thing. I'm less concerned about "forcibly". I could live with substituting "without permission" (or consent).- MrX 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Thanks for conforming to the cited source" would have sufficed (I'm referring to your bizarre {{fv}} tag here). I'm truly sorry that I missed your comment "At least one of the sources cited in the article specifically says "...a video of Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in 2005..."" above. Had I noticed that, I would have, of course, cited this source for "bragged", and another WaPo source (which says "can be heard making vulgar comments" instead of "bragging") for "without their consent".
Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly" – I agree and I thank for citing them in the article. We don't know if "forcibly" is what majority of sources use – proving that would require more than basic research – but if anyone objects "forcing", they should bring another set of sources that use different wording.
I hope you, and everybody else who is involved, noticed that you reverted many constructive edits – including all, I assume, Dervorguilla's edits. Politrukki (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct; the others being DigbyDalton's (Oct. 30) and Charlesaaronthompson's (Oct. 30). --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

KINGOFTO, if you have issues with the neutrality of specific language, then tag those sentences with {{pov-inline}} and start a new discussion for each one. Some arguably non-neutral language here and there isn't a basis for an article-level POV tag. Also, as other folks have mentioned, some of these issues have already been discussed at length and resolved here on the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

-Dr. Fleischman - no, no User:KINGOFTO should put in the tag per guidance that it is the appropriate thing for this situation. (And then others should follow the guidance in the tag that says 'do not remove). Putting in 7 (and then more...) tags all over is not a substitute for it and seems not better anyway. Just kind of proves the point and justifies an overall tag. We've gotten POV issue du jour (or multiples du jour) for weeks now, simpler to just put the notice up there and leave it. (Maybe after 9 November ... or maybe not) Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - You seem missing the text of the POV tag, and the enclosed links for conduct. Relooking at your inputs for User:KINGOFTO list I note you are proving his point it deserves a tag.

1: "HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [19]" ... kind of proves his point there are 20 editors in dispute with the word 2. 'Forcibly' is still in dispute, and "based on" reliable sources sounds a bit like OR rather than NPOV conveying all POVs. 3. WaPo indignation ... Rather than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, he seems correct - this is a single offended party, not meeting 'independant' and not wide ... and I'll add what the heck is significant enough to his life to make that worth a BLP inclusion ? 4. How candidacy described - not WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT if it's the only POV being presented ... and again, editor dispute is what the POV tag says. 5, 6, 7 - OK you oppose him, citing opinion difference... demonstrating again POV dispute

Finally you said 'there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says: Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag' Umm -- not really so big or at top as the boxes, it's an embedded comment lost amidst the page ... and unattributed so why/who or what ... not referenced in the Talk header either so ???? Effectively never gonna get consensus for this either so ???? Seems a circular argument.

CHeers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What does "you seem missing the text of the POV tag" mean? Anyway, there's a specific injunction in the article to NOT put in the tag without consensus. That's really there's to it.

1. Yeah, but we abide by RfC, even if some editors don't like it. This is NOT how this works: "I didn't get my way in an RfC so I'll put in a NPOV tag in the article". Come on, seriously?

2. Yeah and you need consensus to put the tag in. Anything what so ever can easily be made "in dispute" by tendentious editors with enough time on their hands.

3. No.

4. No.

5. No

Basically WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is exactly what you're doing. And saying "it's disputed" is NOT... not not not not not, a sufficient justification for the tag. You need to articulate it, not just "well I disagree".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• As the [neutrality is disputed]-tag has been reverted into the lede I would like to ask where is the consensus about having that tag? --SI 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Above DrFleischman states -- if you have issues with the neutrality of specific language, then tag those sentences

It seems that there is consensus a dispute is ongoing (and participation in that dispute amounts to a de facto admission of that dispute), but lack of consensus about whether an article-wide tag is appropriate in this context. There is clearly no consensus for the language in question itself, and many editors have raised concerns that it violates BLP policy, especially that in cases like this we need to use the most conservative language possible. If some editors are unwilling to reach a consensus phrasing, working in everyone's legitimate concerns especially as related to BLP, it would seem tagging the dispute is the only appropriate measure at this time to avoid persistent edit-warring in which each "side" continues to insert its preferred wording into the article. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Adlerschloß and have replaced the tag....not a badge of shame...not a warning...just a tag which, if not applicable here, then where? KINGOFTO (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Adding a POV tag to the entire article is way out of line. Work on the specific issues. The article itself as a whole is not in dispute. To be clear: There is no consensus to POV tag the entire article. In fact there is a strong consensus not to. Adding disputed material against consensus can be a blockable offense per the Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, in my above statement I meant to advocate for an inline tag (which I had recently added), in case my statement that there was no consensus for an article-wide tag did not make that clear in context. The differing sides on this dispute have each argued in support of an inline tag, which seems closest we'll to consensus until there is more willingness for compromise on the questionable phrasing in question (which itself in present form lacks consensus). Adlerschloß (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alcohol

The section about health says he doesn't drink alcohol. I'm pretty sure I've seen him drink wine in The Apprentice, but I'm not going to suffer through watching it again to find which episode it was. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was non-alcoholic. The reliable sources all say he doesn't drink, and I could find nothing online about him drinking wine in The Apprentice. Even if you found it, it would be original research. Worthy of mentioning to a reporter maybe, but not of posting on Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

He once said he has a rare glass of wine. Not worth mentioning. Objective3000 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TOC Limit 3

I don't think this limit of TOC to 3 levels [20] is good.

This is a complicated article with lots of details. A detailed TOC, like a good introduction, makes it easier to figure out what the article covers.

The TOC limit 3 makes it difficult for the reader to figure out what's covered by the article. For example, it makes it harder to find "Sexual misconduct allegations". A bare mention of "Political positions" doesn't tell the reader that the entry deals with social issues, economic issues, healthcare issues, etc.

In contrast, the Business Career section outlines all of his businesses.

Is there anybody else here who would like to revert it? --Nbauman (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I took it out earlier but it got reverted. I think I'm allowed to revert that under 1RR? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The rule is, "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period". You last edited the page on 12:27, 30 October 2016‎, so you can revert again after 12:27, 31 October 2016‎. It's 05:27, 31 October 2016 now, so you can revert.

User:JFG is welcome to argue for his edit in Talk, but if he changes it without discussion, I'll revert it. --Nbauman (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The TOC limit of 3 was longstanding until Bastun removed it yesterday. I reverted this out of usability reasons, because the expanded TOC would cover more than one screenful on a typical laptop screen. I hear the argument that a lot of relevant content is hidden in subsections but the lead is already an accurate summary of such contents, including controversial stuff; I see no pressing need to bludgeon the TOC. Now under DS per the edit notice, you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. As I reverted your change to a longstanding situation, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for an expanded TOC. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Usability is an issue, true, but is that much of one? One or two swipes of a mousepad or mousewheel or a press or two of the PageDn key and you're there. Compare to the usability issued raised by hiding main topics - people visiting this page are probably a lot more interested in the current allegations facing Trump rather than his flirtation with professional wrestling some years ago. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible. They weren't mentioned in the introductory summary either. (I'd have to check, but I think that when people tried to include them in the summary, some people objected and defeated that edit too.) When I read a page, I assume that I can get a good idea of the contents by reading the summary and the TOC, and I think other readers would too. Now they can't. There's no hint that the article deals with sexual misconduct allegations. Can you address that problem? --Nbauman (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The TOC limit was in place in March 2016, several months before the sexual misconduct allegations emerged. Those are unrelated developments of the article. Besides, TOC placement of this section was discussed earlier at #Heading levels (question raised by Bastun as well), to no effect. — JFG ^talk 09:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the discussion at #Heading levels still stands and was not resolved. First you claim that the sexual allegations are part of the campaign, and should be subheads of the campaign; then you claim that the outline is too difficult to read because it has too many subheads so you eliminate the subheads. You claim that the sexual allegations were not a major issue. Now they are a major issue. The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text. Headling level 3 manages to obscure the sexual allegations. Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! and I feel that the goal of making the subect accessible to the reader outweighs the problem of limiting it to 1 screen on your laptop. It doesn't fit on 1 screen in other monitors, including mine, anyway.

Why don't you think it's important to make the subject of sexual allegations easy to find in the body? --Nbauman (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Please read my words again: I don't "claim" anything here about where the sexual allegations should be placed or how much weight they should have; my position on this question is in the relevant RfC. This TOC discussion is not a content dispute between you and me about the sexual allegations, hence I have no answer to "why do I think it's important". I just pointed out that if you want to change the longstanding TOC limit, you must obtain consensus. As you noted yourself, the previous discussion at #Heading levels "was not resolved", i.e. did not show consensus for Bastun's proposal, so the status quo prevailed. — JFG ^talk 18:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User:JFG, So your position is that, when you decide on the TOC level, the question of whether a more detailed TOC would make it easier to read the article doesn't matter, is that correct? --Nbauman (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: No. I didn't "decide" the TOC level; some editor did that 6 months ago and wasn't challenged until Bastun's edit. My position is that changing a longstanding TOC limit in order to emphasize a recently-added controversial topic is a poor attempt to grab readers' attention. Were your premise true (i.e. claiming that somehow the TOC limit was introduced on purpose to hide the groping scandal), I would have supported your position. But it's false, so I don't. — JFG ^talk 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that the TOC limit was introduced on purpose to hide the groping scandal. My position is that, whether or not it is a long-standing TOC limit, the final result is to make it more difficult for the reader to find a topic that many of them are interested in. Do you agree that it would be easier for the reader to find the sexual allegations in the body if it were in the TOC? --Nbauman (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: You wrote: with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible. This is wrong; they didn't "become" invisible because of the TOC limit, they always were, by virtue of being written months later. You also wrote: The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text, implying intent to hide. I say there's no intent to hide anything; there was a long TOC on a {{very long}} article and it was accordingly limited in depth 6 months ago. Recently this groping affair emerged and was placed under the "Presidential campaign" section, so it was not mentioned in the TOC. (Note in passing that contrary to your assertions I was not involved in adding this content or discussing its hierarchical placement.) Now you and Bastun argue that this incident is worth mentioning in the TOC and I argue that the TOC would become unwieldy if we lifted the limit. Clearly I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Unless other editors weigh in strongly one way or another, we should leave the matter to rest. — JFG ^talk 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that the sexual misconduct allegations became invisible when you reverted Bastun's change. There may not have been an intent to hide, but it had that effect. The TOC limit 3 may have been acceptable when it was first included, when the article was simpler, but now as the article has grown more complex, the TOC limit 3 is no longer acceptable because it has the effect of obscuring important issues, like the sexual misconduct allegations. Because the article is more complex, we should have a more detailed TOC to help readers get through it.

I don't know that we do have consensus to keep TOC limit 3. Bastun and I want to expand it, you want to keep it. Consensus isn't a vote; you have to give reasons. You can't just arbitrarily vote no because you don't like it. I'm trying to figure out your objection so I can answer it, and I would like you to give me an answer.

My question, again, is, "Do you agree that it would be easier for the reader to find the sexual allegations in the body if it were in the TOC?" Could you please answer that question? --Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See the ArbCom remedies message box near the top of this page, in particular: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The edit to change the TOC limit was challenged, and it currently lacks consensus. That is all that matters at this point. If your argument is convincing, it will win consensus and the edit will be reinstated; if not, it won't and it won't. To date, after more than 3 days, I see two editors supporting the change, and that is not a consensus by any measure. User JFG is not required to convince you that you're wrong, and you don't get to declare consensus because they have not satisfied you that they have a viable argument (we don't get to be the arbiters of our own discussions and I'm sure you can see why that could not work). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to obtain consensus. The way to obtain consensus is to have all the parties explain what their arguments are for and against a position, and then examine the basis of their arguments. I am trying to find out User:JFG's objection to expanding the TOC. The first reason he gave me is that it was decided months ago. His main reason seems to be wp:idontlikeit.

My reason for changing it is that it will make the article easier to read. I'm trying to find out whether JFG agrees, disagrees, or doesn't care. My best understanding is that he doesn't care. That's not a good reason for establishing consensus. Consensus isn't a majority vote.

Since you're weighing in on it, User:Mandruss, maybe you could give me your answer. Do you think the article would be easier to read if the TOC were expanded? --Nbauman (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Without an outside, uninvolved closer, it pretty much is just a vote. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that it is not in human nature to concede that one's opponent has the stronger argument, and no one can force them to concede. How many times have you done that? And I mean conceding entire issues, not just an individual point here and there. I used to be very aggravated by the fact that my proposal could be defeated by simply !voting against it, without addressing my points, but I've gotten used to it as part of my wider DGAF survival strategy. It's just the way it is. (This is not a commentary on this thread, just my general observation. But I will say that you should stop asserting WP:IJDLI because your opponent's arguments don't make any sense to you; a bad argument in your view is not absence of argument.) If you fail to gain consensus and feel strongly enough, start an RfC.
I have no opinion about the TOC limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree, and it's not a matter of "not liking it". First, from a UI design and human factors standpoint, long menus are painful to scan and they get skipped, yielding the opposite of the OP's desired effect. Second, I also disagree with lifting the limit for the express purpose of steering readers' attention to the groping scandal. This information is easy enough to find by reading the lead (which comes before the TOC) or using the search box where "Trump" combined with any terms like "kissing", "groping", "assault", "rape", "bragging" or "grabbing" will promptly lead curious readers to two very long articles fully dedicated to this topic. Oh, and a good chunk of Legal affairs of Donald Trump too, with no less than 10 citations in the lead. — JFG ^talk 21:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I know a bit about user interface design and ergonomics. I have a copy of Henry Dreyfuss' Measure of Man. Your link to "User interface design" discusses usability testing. I doubt that you've done usability testing on Wikipedia TOCs. So the fact that there is such as thing as usability testing doesn't support your claim, since you haven't done it. If you did usability testing, you might find that your subjects wanted a more detailed TOC. So it does look like it's simply a personal preference.

What other objections do you have, besides simply not liking it? --Nbauman (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave you lots of reasons but you are not listening, and I will point out that your proposal can also be construed as a personal preference. If you want to assess community support for this change, open an RfC. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nbauman that the heading depth should be bumped up for this article. It's important to enable readers to find the subsections under "Presidential campaign, 2016," which I suspect they are most interested in these days. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If people want to read about the campaign, they'll click the campaign heading. Or the sidebar. Or a link in the lead. Or use the search box. We have plenty of navigational aids already. If some content is deemed more important than some other, it can be bumped up a level. Finally, the article will probably need some deep restructuring right after the election, so leave it be for now. We are all wasting our time arguing inconsequential minutiae. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• The article should remain with the default TOC for reasons well-articulated by others in this section. There seems to a trend lately of hiding unfavorable navigational links which is very bad precedent to set, and it runs afoul of WP:NPOV.- MrX 12:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  TOC limit 3 was in place long before the material in question was added. If any use of TOC limit is presumed to be for ulterior reasons, why does it exist as an option? Or is that presumed only in highly contentious political articles? What evidence do you have of this motive? If this material is important enough that it really needs to be in the TOC, why is it at level 4? I've said above that I have no opinion as to this issue, and I have none, but I do object to your reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  It's at TOC level 4, Mandruss, because when I moved it to TOC level 3, I was told "No, the groping and sexual assault allegations from years ago are only prominent now because of Trump's presidential campaign so they must be included as a subsection of that" and got reverted. And of course the allegation of a rape of a minor and upcoming court hearing aren't included because... well, yeah... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  My conclusion that there is "a trend lately of hiding unfavorable navigational links" is based on observation, synthesis, and inductive reasoning. For style and ease of access reasons, there should be good reasons to deviate from a default, and I have seen none so far. There also needs to be consensus, which clearly doesn't exist.- MrX 12:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I think WP:AGF sets a higher bar than observation, synthesis, and inductive reasoning, which are completely subjective by nature as you know. As for burden of consensus, it falls on the editors wishing to make the change, not those wishing to deviate from a default, per the ArbCom restrictions laid out near the top of this page. Unless a lie has been told, the TOC limit 3 was in place for six months and the disputed edit was the one that removed it. Your only viable case is that there is a consensus for that edit here, and that is very borderline. I'm not going to revert you for making a flawed argument on multiple counts. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I stop assuming good faith when multiple edits and multiple comments demonstrate bad-faith. The failure to revert a bold edit does not establish much of a consensus, and the apathy/inertia allowing it to remain in place for six months doesn't either (see Warnock's dilemma, WP:SILENCE, and WT:CONSENSUS). Once a couple of editors objected to the original bold edit, the silent consensus was negated. There is no first-mover advantage at Wikipedia.- MrX 13:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I am unable to reconcile that reasoning with the ArbCom restrictions. Given that choice, I'll continue to go with ArbCom. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  @MrX: I just noticed that you restored the contested edit of the TOC level, claiming a consensus which is not apparent from this discussion. As Mandruss advised you that this can be considered a violation of the ArbCom decision, I suggest you self-revert. Note that I appreciate Awilley's work to reduce the number of level-4 headers, thus improving legibility and navigation. — JFG ^talk 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  JFG, I count four editors who support the standard TOC levels, and one who does not. Given that the arguments for and against have similar weight, that seems like a firm consensus to me. I also support Awilley's edits to reduce the number of sections headings.- MrX 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please stop bickering about editors' motives and focus on what is best for the article? My analysis is that really only two content-based arguments have been made. Some folks want the limit increased to 4 to give the campaign subsections greater visibility, and some folks want the limit to stay at 3 to improve legibility and navigation. Discuss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Imposing a limit of 3 worsens navigation, DrFleischman. I - like most readers, I'd imagine - have no interest in reading about Donald ringside at Wrestlemania Whatever. I do want to read the latest version of the section on allegations of sexual misconduct and would like to be able to jump to that section easily. On a mobile phone or tablet, especially, that's much easier to get to when the TOC limit is 4 rather than 3... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

With the recent streamlining of some unnecessary level-4 headers, the TOC is coming to a reasonable size. The only level-3 sections which are still broken down into level-4 subsections are his real estate career, the 2016 presidential campaign and his political positions. I would agree that all three of those deserve more detail: the real estate because it has been his main activity for several decades, the campaign and positions because they are the main theme of his life and reader interest today. That being said, I feel that within the campaign section, it is unbalanced to have 2 subsections out of 5 dedicated to the recent sexual innuendo and accusations. I suggest listing the Access Hollywood section under the main Sexual misconduct allegations section, because it's the event that triggered the outcry and prompted other people to pursue this affair. If my fellow editors agree to this balancing redistribution, I will be happy to keep a level-4 TOC. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it great how things turn out when we all work together? - MrX 18:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

On the "ergonomics," I was using an iPad yesterday which displayed the page in "reading view," which ignored TOC limit 3 and gave all levels. So according to the algorithms that generate reading view, the TOC limit 4 is easier to read.

And on my own monitor, which is set to the Wikipedia default for number of lines, the TOC limit 3 takes more than 1 screen anyway. So what JFG is really saying is that it looks better on his monitor (even if it doesn't look better on anybody else's monitor).

So this "ergonomics" justification doesn't hold up.--Nbauman (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

JFG, that sounds like a great idea. JasperTECH (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

JFG - that seems a good side-suggestion, but maybe I've got a better one for re TOC level. Just raise the 2016 campaign to a level 1 item, and all its subsections up a level too. For the non-iPad user it's still an ergonomics navigation and readability issue to have just too much. The TOC is for rapid navigation within the article and sense of overall structure, and having many screens means it's less helpful to do navigation and overall structure is harder to see, plus the lower details are gonna be not seen. We've gotten to 5+ pgdns before I see article so into diminishing returns -- the lead is 2 screens so I'm into TL:DR skipping past the sex para to get to TOC so I can get to the topical interest, and having the TOC add layers is more to skip past where I'm seeing the top level and next level and more than any below that is visual junk to be skipped over. (And half of you have hit TL:DR and aren't reading this anymore...) Anyway, I'll suggest instead to move the 2016 election OUT of past politics to be it's own section, which I think would be appropriate for it's significance and duration and would also raise up the TOC level of it's parts so the sex maniacs do not mangle it more than need be.

p.s. I think we're only seeing this issue because folks are puting too much detail re campaing into this BLP page instead of the article on that topic. I'm noting the Hillary Clinton bio has 2016 election as one section 1 level not 3 levels, and 2.5 pgdns (due to photos) not 7.5. So maybe a multi-article navigation issue causing a TOC-problem here. (Unless folks are just feeling his life and material is just more noteworthy and covered so WP:DUE getting more WP space, but that ... seems a different topic than TOC :-}. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You illustrate my point very well: overly long and detailed TOCs get skimmed and skipped, negating their purpose in giving a clear overview of the subject matter at hand. I have considered your suggestion to move the 2016 campaign up a notch but it strikes me as illogical to detach it from the Politics section and put it on the same footing as, say, Appearances in popular culture. Trump's life has three overarching themes: real estate, entertainment and politics; the current top-level structure reflects this nicely. Depending on election results, the Politics section will grow or shrink and the article will be rebalanced accordingly., as suggested earlier by JasperTech. To your other point, comparing the structure of this page to Hillary Clinton's article, this simply reflects the natural difference between Trump spending his life in business and Clinton spending her life in politics. Biographical articles do follow the subject's life development, regardless of which section is deemed more interesting or more in demand. I agree that Trump's bio page currently has too much detail about this campaign, and I'm sure that will change over the next few months (either as it shrinks for lack of relevancy if Trump loses or as it morphs into describing the formative period of the Trump presidency if he wins). — JFG ^talk 05:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done I have grouped the sexual allegation material into a single section and I hereby endorse the full TOC display. — JFG ^talk 05:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump email controversy

I believe we should cover the Trump email controversy somewhere in the article. As Newsweek notes, "Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders."[21] --Tataral (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems pretty big, especially the part about the Hard Rock Casino e-mails. I'd wait a couple of days and see whether/how the rest of the media picks it up. It certainly seems newsworthy to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman, that's the point, we are NOT the news. If this is the type of horsesh$t that's going to be added to the BIO, its time to lock this down. --Malerooster (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's from a reliable source. The view that this is "horseshit" is your own. You're welcome to go argue on WP:RSN that Newsweek is "horseshit".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

More sources [22], [23], [24], [25] as well as older stories which began just scratching the surface [26], [27].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Who the F cares that's its from a reliable source? That doesn't mean automatic inclusion in the article? --Malerooster (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant material [28] has been removed by User:Malerooster with an edit summary ... which is really just one big personal attack. Note that the material is well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If the shoe fits. --Malerooster (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NPA again and note the article is under discretionary sanctions. And what your edit summary shows is that your revert is completely spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster, you've been around long enough to know better. The material is reliably sourced, and pertinent to this BLP. Trump has criticised Clinton strongly over email management and now it turns out he's been doing much the same thing for years longer. Trump has made this extra-relevant. --Pete (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pete, he's been doing much the same thing for years longer, now that's some serious horsesh#t. --Malerooster (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversations or are you just going to refer to other users' comments as "horseshit"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Dr. Fleischman that we should wait and see how the media picks it up. The fact it is sourced is irrelevant, it at also must be significant. Per "Balancing aspects", "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." While it is tempting to compare this story to Clinton destroying emails, the difference is Clinton's destroying emails is important because it is part of the narrative about whether or not her use of a private email server violated national security (when she was Secretary of State). The investigation into the alleged security lapse was news for months, while few if any of the cases in which Trump allegedly destroyed emails received any attention. TFD (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I initially thought we should wait also, but now it's has been covered in a few very solid sources (in addition to the ones presented above, there's also Washington Post, NBC News, The Independent, Mic, New York Business Journal), so I think a sentence or two would be appropriate right now, and more can be added as the story develops. What makes it noteworthy is that Trump accused Clinton of the same thing. - MrX 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Plus the whole "often in defiance of court orders" part. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait. No indication this will be a lasting campaign issue much less a biographical one. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait. If we included every Trump-scandal-of-the-day, the article would be overwhelmed. Wait and see if it becomes more than a 24-hour story, or if it becomes a campaign issue. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember any time during this election when something like this blew over, but I guess it's possible. Certainly there's nothing wrong with waiting a day or two to see where this goes.- MrX 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This again follows the pattern of: 1) Verified material covered by multiple reliable sources gets added to an article. 2) As it's perceived as being negative to Trump, it gets removed. 3) "Debate" follows, with various policies quoted, but no clear consensus can obviously emerge so partisan editors effectively keep out the negative material prior to the election. I've not checked the equivalent Clinton article, but I'm sure it's talk page doesn't include contributions from the same editors who are here quoting WP:RECENTISM, WP:BALASP and similar, in relation to the latest "FBI investigating Clinton for emails she didn't send" story. I find it hard to believe this is what Arbcom actually intended. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If you did go to the Clinton talk page, you would then realize your analysis above is horsesh#t. Sorry Volunteer Marek, sh$t is sh&t, and just calling a spade a spade, too bad if you don't like. --Malerooster (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is your i key broke? Maybe you can find a replacement at IKEA.- MrX 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of immediate inclusion of this content, now that Volunteer Marek and MrX have provided additional sources. And I think Malerooster's arguments should be disregarded, as repeatedly calling the story "horseshit" with nothing more is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Include it. Put it in the LEAD. Idiots. --Malerooster (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malerooster: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a clear example of recentism. Trump has been headline news every day for over a year, and has been a world famous celebrity for over thirty years. Not every story deserves mention let alone its own section. Generally too, stuff like that should not just pop out but should either be included in a section about his business methods or as part of the specific cases where they arose. It seems like this is an attempt by the DNC to counter the Clinton email scandal, and hence its only relevance is to the campaign articles. But it looks like it's not working, and hence has minimal weight. TFD (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not recent. He's been doing this for years. Nor is it confined to one episode - it's obviously something pertinent to the man, rather than just one aspect. --Pete (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's recentism. This article is dominated by editors who are unambiguously anti-Trump. There is zero way around this fact. Doc talk 05:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a section is undue. But a paragraph is appropriate in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You sure there's not enough "meat" for its own little article? Like this "encyclopedic" little gem. It could get to FA status, ya know... Doc talk 06:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Of course there's an article, duly listed in Trump's sidebar too… — JFG ^talk 07:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Concerning any controversies, both this article & Hillary Clinton, should be left alone until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone has created Donald Trump email controversy. It seems like that information should be included into this article or merged into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The standalone article seems very weak and unlikely to have any legs. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Recentism is a personal essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to have an encyclopedia that is current and up to date.

If something is wrong with the article, or something can be improved, I see no reason why it should wait until after the election. Readers are most interested in Trump while he's running for president. Is there something wrong with that? --Nbauman (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: May I question your bold claim that "Recentism is a personal essay, not a Wikipedia guideline". It's actually part of WP:UNDUE policy,

"Discussion of isolated news reports is a concern especially in relation to recent events in the news,"

and WP:NOTNEWS policy,

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Breaking news should not be emphasized."

Compare with Wikinews, which does focus on recent events. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Dervorguilla, you are free to question my "claim." I don't think it's a "bold claim" to quote the actual text:

WP:RECENTISM: This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies.

I would invite you to quote any text to show that WP:RECENTISM is an official policy or guideline, or has any official WP status, rather than some editors' unofficial interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY.

I would also recommend that you quote more completely from WP:NOTNEWS:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. [My emphasis]

That means breaking news is as acceptable if it meets the same criteria as any other content. That means reporting by multiple WP:RS. WP:NPOV doesn't mean deleting unflattering content, it means adding the subject's point of view.

One of the problems with WP:RECENTISM is that editors use it as a justification to delete anything they don't like, when they can't find a good reason.

I don't want to accuse people of editing with a bias for or against Trump, but the suggestion that we wait until after the election before including it seems conveniently favorable to Trump.

In any case, the entry Donald_Trump_document_deletion_controversy cites a USA Today story of June 13, 2016, and a Newsweek story of October 31, 2016. How recent is "recent"? Is 5 months enough? How many WP:RSs are sufficient to give weight? Are the 21 cited in the references enough? --Nbauman (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal

Hey all. I removed the (short) paragraph in this edit, citing BLP/UNDUE concerns, and I noted that I had also looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy, where a consensus right now is difficult to see--but there's a lot of delete votes, and a number of merge votes, and some legitimate concerns, which strengthened my in my opinion. My invocation of the BLP is not unequivocal; it's a judgment call, and the moment you all have a decent consensus here on what to do with it, I will not stand in the way. This is going to be a matter of editorial consensus, so good luck with it.

BTW, my edit summary was so long that I had to remove "Undid edit by Volunteer Marek", and I didn't want to make this personal anyway--so let me just say congrats that Auburn was ranked in the top ten. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think at the very least the Donald Trump email controversy should be linked somewhere. And we're coming for ya.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh I know that. I wonder, isn't it in one of these templates? The merge votes mentioned some "Legal affairs of DT" article, which seems valid, and I am sure that page is linked--and I would be surprised if there wasn't a link from the legal article to the email article. This is part of the balancing act for an article that's at AfD: is it valid to have a direct link from the main article? Somewhere in the text or more prominently right under a subject heading? But this is something y'all can settle here. Thanks VM, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like you to explain exactly why you think there are Undue and BLP problems. Destroying evidence in a civil case is a serious offense, and according to the Newsweek story, Trump was sanctioned at least once and settled cases on unfavorable terms as a result. The Newsweek story was picked up by many WP:RS who also thought it was significant. I've read the AfD and the arguments for deletion basically come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or they don't like it because it's unfavorable to Trump, so I'd like a better reason, based on WP policies and guidelines. --Nbauman (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

NBauman, it is not as big a story as many of the other stories going around right now--though probably well-verified, this is not a headline grabber, and for it to be included it should be big. Yuge. The second paragraph of WP:UNDUE is indicative: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This certainly had prominence of placement, for instance. Now, that the votes you don't like at the AfD are examples of IDONTLIKEIT--well, I hope you see my point. As long as that AfD is running, and as long as it's not some obvious SNOW keep, we need to accept that the content is not unequivocally notable. But I don't have to defend the votes at the AfD (nor do you have to attack them) in order to see that there is a legitimate AfD, and that thus the content is still contentious. Get the consensus, and you can stick it back in. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tag restriction in edit box

Could someone please explain by what consensus or authorization this came from?

Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag above this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RfC or a section tag or an inline tag. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It was added in this edit on August 14, 2016 by administrator MelanieN in response to another editor repeatedly inserting the POV tag. Maintenance tags, like everything else in this article, are subject to the arbitration remedies mentioned at the top of this talk page (WP:ARBAPDS), meaning they shouldn't be restored without consensus. The POV tag is often used as a badge of shame, which is why it's so contentious. Additionally, this page already has over 1300 watchers, so adding the tag to attract more editors or encourage discussion (which is ongoing) is unnecessary. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

KINGOFTO, you were advised by one of our most-respected admins to listen to the experienced editors who have advised you to stop repeatedly adding the POV template to the top of this article. Your examples of how the article fails WP:NPOV have been roundly refuted. Your conduct here has gone from annoying to full-on disruptive and tendentious. If you persist, I can almost guarantee that you're going to be blocked or topic banned. Please stop now.- MrX 23:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Too late.- MrX 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Trimming the template

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Trimming the template. - MrX 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Political affiliation

• The following request copied from WP:RFED[29] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The infobox says that he was Democrat prior to 1987, but the Political Affiliation section either isn't clear on his pre-1987 standing or seems to suggest that he in fact leaned Republican. -2601:204:C901:E73C:2DA8:481D:BBFC:FCA (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe wrong twice: First, I see here what looks like his registration history as Republican. Online I see it mentioned as 'he registered for the first time as a Republican' in July 1987 -- so never a Democrat. Second though, why is this included ??? If this template is a politician one, to reflect his party, then shouldn't that be the party he ran as and only in the yes that he did run or serve ? Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

comma

I believe that this removal of the comma I added is incorrect. See e.g. here.

The relative clause here is non-restrictive, i.e. the sentence could equivalently be split into two: "Trump is ... a politician. He is the Republican nominee..."

The relative clause cannot meaningfully be restrictive in this context, given the combination of the indefinite article in the main clause and the definite article in the relative clause. In other words, you could say "the politician who is the Republican nominee", but you can't say "a politician who is the Republican nominee" because there is by definition only one politician who is the Republican nominee.

Maybe nobody cares, but I would think that the first sentence of a very high-profile article ought to be grammatically correct.

--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Trump is a businessman who is also the Republican nominee. See, I just did it. Your argument is not grammatical, by the way--it's stylistic. Plus I don't agree that somehow "boasted" is informal and therefore incorrect--but that edit has already been reverted. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they were saying "bragged" was informal, so "boasted" was better. But they have different connotations and "bragged" appears to be well sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, yeah, the other way around. I actually Googled around and "boasted" is verified as well--the LA Times, I think, had that in a headline. Either way, I don't care for that stylistic argument, and we had pretty much settled on "bragged", though not in the context of "bragged" vs. "boasted". "Boast" has a bit too much of an heroic, Anglo-Saxon connotation for me; "brag" strikes me as appropriate given the sources, but also given "braggadociousness". Thanks for the correction, Drmies (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New picture

I think it's time to put a more appropriate image in the infobox.

--Reollun (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious or joking? Please check out the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See here. It's very unlikely that you'll get much support for reopening that debate now, as the discussion was quite recent and resulted in a firm consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Reollun: The current image looks OK. How could a better image be chosen? Jarble (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I presume it will have to be changed since he is now preisdent-elect. --Reollun (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence of the article contains a possible error. That sentence begins, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television producer, and politician . . . " That last word is incorrect. If Trump is elected president, he will be the first to attain that office who had never served in any prior political office or the military. That means that he won't become a "politician" unless he wins--and only then after he is inaugurated. And if he loses, of course, he will remain, as he himself says, a political outsider. In his speeches he has even declared plainly, "I am not a politician." It would, therefore, have been more correct to have written "political candidate" instead of "politician" in that sentence.

Fredwords (talk) 6:45 PM Eastern, November 8, 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This was previously discussed, and the consensus was that, as a candidate, he is a politician.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed "politician," as it is redundant to "president-elect" in the same sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of his political stances after election

Are we removing this after today? Seems pretty weird to let it stay there, Obama doesn't have a "policies" section. User1937 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User1937: There is an article about the political positions of Donald Trump. Why would it be necessary to remove the "policies" section? Jarble (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with trimming or removing the "political stances" section, with a link to the main "Political positions of..." article. It was appropriate when he was a candidate, but that's behind us. It will soon be replaced by a "presidency" or "tenure" section detailing his major actions, positions, and proposals as president. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When to update the article to president-elect?

All major betting markets have him at 97-99% (the difference from 100% largely due to fees & commissions). Do we wait for AP to announce? Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We wait for anyone to call it, first off. And then we don't necessarily jump on the first call. Remember the 2000 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

After two big newspapers announce it. God bless Donald Trump. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If Trump Wins

If Trump wins I made his President-Elect template.

Donald Trump
President-elect of the United States
Assuming office January 20, 2017
Vice President	Mike Pence (elect)
Succeeding	Barack Obama
Personal details
Born	Donald John Trump (1946-06-14) June 14, 1946 New York City, New York, U.S.A.
Political party	Republican
Spouse	Melania Trump
Children	Donald Trump Jr. Ivanka Trump Eric Trump Tiffany Trump Barron Trump
Residence(s)	Manhattan, New York, U.S.A.]
Alma mater	Fordham University University of Pennsylvania (BA)
Occupation	Businessman
Signature
Website	Official website Campaign website
This article is part of a series about Donald Trump Background  · Political positions  · Public image  · Family 2016 primaries · Trump–Pence campaign U.S. Presidential transition  · Inauguration

Very good; thank you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would leave out nationality, residence, alma mater, occupation and religion. TFD (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL!!! Doc talk 06:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Residence and occupation will change. It is assumed that the president is an American. Trump may have dual nationality as his mother was from the UK. Religion is no longer the defining feature it once was. I would leave out anything that is unimportant or ambiguous. TFD (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

For people born in 1946 British nationality was acquired by descent through the legitimate male line. You didn't get British nationality by having a British-born mother when you were born in the US to an American father. Trump is certainly no British citizen; the UK Parliament wouldn't debate banning one of its own citizens from the country for hate speech. --Tataral (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Residence is the WHITE HOUSE!!! :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, it isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead

His climate change denial is mentioned in the body of the article, with several reliable sources ("Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a "hoax."). Many RS have discussed his climate change denial and how serious these views are, so this is certainly not a lesser issue, many RS agree it's one of the most important political issues when it comes to Trump[30]. Therefore it should clearly be mentioned in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It has not received a lot of attention and therefore does not belong there (yet). TFD (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it has received a lot of attention (at least outside the US) although we may wait for a few days to put it in the lead. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lede. The lede should mention only those things that he himself made into the major themes of his campaign (e.g. immigration and trade). Climate change is already in the body of the text, and it gets suitable attention at Political positions of Donald Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"The lede should mention only those things that he himself made into the major themes" – that the subject of an article gets to decide which issues that are covered in the lead is certainly not a recognised principle on Wikipedia or what WP:LEAD says. Trump has himself made strongly contrarian statements on climate change and the environment and has said he wants to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. Clearly environmental policy is a very important topic and he holds strong views on it and has proposed radical policies in the field. --Tataral (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please have this discussion at Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 23:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Clearly environmental policy is a very important topic" This statement is factually incorrect. You may think environmental policy is important but that is your opinion only. I don't think environmental policy is important. Further, the assertion that environmental policy is "clearly [...] very important" is necessarily false... because it clearly is NOT important to me. So speak for yourself. 107.0.155.16 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Victory

Donald Trump won the electoral college vote with 276 votes as of 7:44 am, Greenwich Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorigoat (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In the tape, he says as a star women let him do it. That implies consent, not forced action.

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First Billionaire President?

Can this be added? Also this article: List of United States Presidents by net worth should be updated. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not actually know his net worth. TFD (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't? Forbes says they do. Shouldn't we go by that? Hidden Tempo (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think only a billionaire could afford a personal 757 jet. Tai Hai Chen (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, we don't know the worth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of previous presidents. In terms of their own day, Washington or Jefferson may have been billionaires. Leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

we don't know the worth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of previous presidents. We appear to think we do.[31] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He still hasn't released his tax returns (the only presidential candidate in recent years not to do so), so no, we don't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Put Donald Trump won presidental election

Donald Trump won the presidential election. Add more stuff in this wiki! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

I think it's time to change the lead image. The smiling Trump is reflective of the man who is now President-elect of the United States. Trump is not the man in deep contemplation but the man who contemplated a winning strategy and stands ready, and happy to serve.--John Cline (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, of course. The same goes for United States presidential election, 2016, the pages about the Republican primaries, etc. We have a fine picture, it's time to use it. This is not equivalent to "beating a dead horse" anymore. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I placed a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox.

If this is reverted, this image is the proposed image:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3
• 
  Image 4 (cropped of Image 1)

Placed this in the talk page just in case! --ZiaLater (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules...--Stemoc 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reminder : this image has also been proposed (see section above and previous discussions) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(moved image to gallery above)

ZiaLater is following the rules, but you are not. I agree with the logic of ZiaLater, and I vote to keep the contribution of ZiaLater. Several others have already reverted your disruptive edit concerning this matter, Stemoc. Please see WP on conduct—anything remotely percieved as bullying is to be avoided, and don't be resistant to allow others to contribute within guidelines. You're not the only user here, and so far you're the only one resistant to this edit. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for placing it without discussion! One of the reasons I uploaded my image is that in the current image, the microphone is in the way. The other proposed image seen in the reminder has a microphone too but is not bad.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, here is another proposed image:

(moved image to gallery above)

Should be enough options for now.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think User:ZiaLater's first proposal (at the top of this section) is the better one. Please be aware though that the image should not be changed without clear consensus here. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and I've reluctantly just had to block an editor who exceeded 3RR who was edit warring over the image. This is a reminder to all editors not revert more than once on this article in a 24 hour period. WaggersTALK 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not revert's ZiaLater's edit on the page because I did not like the image but because he/she did not follow the protocol which is that images need to be discussed here and a proper outcome (if there is one) needs to be adhered to. You cannot just go 'willy-nilly' changing the image to suit the one you want. The image has been changed on that page many many times so a proper procedure should now be followed, that said, it would be wise if admins watching the page do not block users trying to restore the longstanding image by mistake, As i was told by another admin, the IRR on that page is not very clear..That said, I do like the first image but it has to be zoomed in a bit, its supposed to be a headshot, not a longshot :)--Stemoc 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's been quite a bit of confusion and discussion about discretionary sanctions lately; in the case of the editor I blocked they had breached 3RR not just the discretionary 1RR sanction so it was a fairly clear-cut decision. You're quite right, admins should not block users trying to restore the longstanding image (unless it's clear the consensus has changed of course). WaggersTALK 10:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, I added a gallery now, its an easier method and makes it less congested, peopel can add more options (just make sure its an actual headshot and recent and not images from 2014 or before).--Stemoc 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• 1, 2 and 4 are fine as far as I'm concerned. What matters is that we have to replace the current photo ASAP. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• I like Image 2 the most but it would be better if the microphone was photoshopped out. 1, 3, and 4 are also feasible. Note that the photo of Trump on the United States presidential election, 2016 article has been changed as well. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• I vote for Image 4. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Why don't we wait until his presidential picture is released? We are going to change this picture to only have to change it again soon. When will this non-sense end? Chase|^talk 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How long does it take for this official picture to be revealed? With Obama, it took months. As president elect of the United States, Trump should at least have a decent picture until the official one is unveiled.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• No change until his official portrait emerges. That was the consensus in zillions of prior discussions. — JFG ^talk 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change picture. Out of all the photos to chose from, this was obviously a negative POV choice. There's no reason not to change to an image with a formal pose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change picture to 3 or 4. 3 is him grinning and not smiling as much while 4 is closer and shows him smiling. The current image shows him hunched over behind a microphone.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• No change per JFG, although zillions may be a slight overstatement. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change picture I don't like Trump, but he does look pretty damn presidential in picture #3 UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How much longer is this going to go on? Pretty soon all of Trump's and Clinton's supporters that come to this page are going to line up and vote accordingly here. So we must let Wikipedia POLICY determine what photo is used. -- The existing photo of Trump, clearly wearing a frown with eyes shifted to his left, violates Policy regarding Biographies of Living People, as it is a "disparaging" image of Trump. Since there are more formal pictures that could have been chosen, this is a POV issue as well. All president's biographies, and even that of Hillary Clinton, present the subject with a favorable pose. We need to treat this biography like any other. The image should be changed now and administrators should make sure Wikipedia policy is maintained for all editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Image 3 has been placed into the infobox for now since most agreed with in and because most agreed that the previous image was not NPOV. Image 3 can stay for now but if others want to agree on the other proposed images, decide below. The previous image, however, should not be placed back. At least for the next few months until his official portrait is unveiled, we can have a NPOV image for him.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I do agree with others that the current photo is not ideal. It is difficult to find a photo that is both available for usage per its licensing and also one that everyone can agree upon, but I think the current one could be much better. Nagylelkű (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Gwillhickers mentions the behaviour or "Trump's and Clinton's supporters" : I am not a Trump supporter, but that doesn't stop from thinking that the photo should be changed. Quite simply because it does not only make Trump look bad (hence violating NPOV) : it makes Wikipedia look even worse. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Picture!!!

Can we now please get a new picture of PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP?--Subman758 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is under discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems not to matter now. The practice is to keep the official government photo of their last government position -- so in a couple months it would become his official Presidential Photo, and then it stays that forever. Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is my opnion but I don't think the new picture looks presidential with the black background and the expression on his face. I proposed a new picture in a new topic

--Dyl1G (talk) 2:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of President-Elect

Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it premature to call Donald Trump President-Elect until the Electoral College elections occur in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. I thought there was something in the constitution about that where yes he is elected by popular vote but in order to be the President-Elect he needs to be elected by the Electoral College first and then and only then can he be called President-Elect and then upon swearing-in President of the United States. YborCityJohn (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost all media organizations have referred to him as President-elect. I'd suggest looking back at the talk page archive of Barack Obama from around his election to determine the answer to your question. Calibrador (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand what your saying. But I don't think he can be called President-Elect until after Electoral College vote. So this is what I'm going to do, in the morning I'm going to check an online version of the U.S. Constitution to see what exactly it says about this and will post a further response. But I invite other Wikipedians to chime in. YborCityJohn (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, he won. It's even on the main page. Time to admit it and update the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Precedent on Wikipedia is likely to yield a better result. Calibrador (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dispute that he won in fact I voted for him, all I'm saying is that it is my belief that he cannot be called President-Elect until the conclusion of the Electoral College vote. YborCityJohn (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He is not the president-elect. He has not been formally elected by anyone, and whether he might be elected/appointed at a later point by the electoral college is pure speculation at this point. It also seems likely that Clinton will actually win the election in the normal sense of the word, as it is generally understood internationally (e.g. in the context of election observations), that is, she will receive the most votes[32] (which however doesn't rule out the possibility, not certainty, that the electoral college might elect the guy who got the least votes as president, a practice more associated with countries with a limited democratic tradition than with western countries). --Tataral (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that Clinton conceded, right? This isn't an ongoing election. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is an ongoing election for Wikipedia's purposes because it is the electoral college who gets to elect the president, and until they have elected a president, there is no president-elect, only speculation about who seems likely to be elected by the electoral college. --Tataral (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, by law, that's not the case.[33]. According to the US Congress: "It will be noted that the committee uses the term "president elect" in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House. It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the president-elect as soon as the votes are cast." If you read the congressional discussions about the subject, waiting for the electoral college's official decision is not required. - Aoidh (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read that sentence again. It clearly refers to the person who has received the most votes in the electoral college. --Tataral (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what it says and what has happened in this case. The law refers quite clearly to "apparent successful candidates" for president and vice president to be qualified to be referred to as president-elect and vice president-elect. It does not say, as you suggest, that the electoral college must finalize their decision for it to take effect (and if you read the congressional discussions around this it reaffirms it). The law, and reliable sources, both support the descriptor. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it says the opposite. There would be no point in having an electoral college if the vote by the electoral college wasn't necessary. --Tataral (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretations aside (apparent does not mean official or finalized), you're still arguing against reliable sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, rather than editorial interpretation of constitutional law. Do you have any reliable sources that support what you're trying to say? Because all the sources I'm finding support the descriptor. - Aoidh (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What you're referring to as winning the election "in the normal sense of the word" is irrelevant to that, since that's not how the president is determined. Even if she won the popular vote, that would not mean he is no longer the president elect, nor would it change the fact that reliable sources are saying, without doubt, that he is the president elect. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and reliable sources support "president elect" being a descriptor for the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be technically/legally correct to say he is not really the president-elect until the Electoral College has met and acted. But at Wikipedia we follow Reliable Sources, and sources are unanimous in referring to him as president-elect.[34] [35] [36] --MelanieN (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's technically/legally correct to say Trump is not really the President-elect at all. The sources got it right, as Public Law 88-277 also stipulates that “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” ... "shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, ... following the general elections ..." [37].--John Cline (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

YborCityJohn I just looked through the text of both Article 2 and the Twelfth Amendment, and neither one use the word "President-elect" nor make reference to when that title applies. Both items simply specify how the US Electoral College chooses the President and Vice-President, and when terms take effect, etc. etc. That's all. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactions; description as far right and more

It is time to start working on a sub section or something on how the world reacts to the results, for instance, how he is first and foremost congratulated by far right figures (Far right first to congratulate Trump on historic upset: Around the world rightwing nationalists and far-right leaders react with glee as Republican candidate wins US election). We also need to revisit the issue at some point of how his position in the political landscape should be described; certainly there is a strong case for describing him as a far right politician in the first paragraph of the lead, based on coverage in reliable sources and his political positions and how they are assessed in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This sounds extremely POV to me. And to be honest, I disagree. He is center-right. He is less socially conservative ("far right") than Ted Cruz for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "far-right" is appropriate to describe him, and I don't think the "far right was first" info is significant. We should report the dramatic drop in value of the Dow Jones futures and other financial markets during election night, as it began to look more and more like a Trump win,[38][39] but we should do that at the Presidential Election article, not here. --MelanieN (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

His views are more far-right than any far-right party in Europe that I know of (as pointed out e.g. here[40]). If banning Muslims from entering the US, building a wall against Mexicans and so on and so forth isn't far-right, nothing is. His views have also been widely described as such. Also, the reactions of Le Pen and other far right figures who were the first to congratulate him have been widely reported in reliable sources across the globe. --Tataral (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I could explain why you're wrong, but I suggest closing this topic as per WP:NOTAFORUM.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

<Personal attacks and BLP violations removed.>--BowlAndSpoon (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This talk page, and this section, is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump. Please stay on topic. --Tataral (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And this is not a forum. Close please.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bishonen: I don't think Bow's comment should have been redacted by you. It was based on RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Was it? WP:BLP applies to all pages, not just articles. The removed material egregiously insulted a living person — I won't quote how, as that would kind of defeat the purpose — here it is. I would have been remiss if I hadn't removed the insulting part. I suppose I could conceivably have left the rest, i. e. the ABF attacks on other editors. But it's not like that was acceptable talkpage discourse either, so I didn't. I have warned the editor, btw. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

I don't see where the BLP violation would be?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Really. As I just said, I won't quote it here as that would defeat the purpose. I've e-mailed it to you. I hope I've spent enough time on this now. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

Religion

Since all articles about previous Presidents have religion in their infoboxes, I suggest adding:

Presbyterian

to the infobox. Or delete that parameter from all those articles?Ernio48 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ernio, I added exactly that this morning and someone inexplicably removed it.

I agree it should be re-added, however I do not want an edit war over something so empirical but also something so minor. But it belongs in the infobox like for any other President. --OettingerCroat (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When is the article getting unlocked?

There isn't a lot being updated, because pretty much nobody is allowed to. User1937 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that there is a reason why US prez pages are usually heavily protected. It's cuz they're most susceptible to vandalism. We honestly don't need trolls ruining the page; and with all this controversy going on with the US's up and coming prez, I'd say it's foolish that Donald's page isn't well guarded. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Apples and pears

In the sentence "At 70, he will be the oldest person to ever become a first-term president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980." we are juxtaposing winning (Reagan 1980) and becaming president (Trump 2017 ["will be"]). Strictly speaking it should be:

• At 70, he is the oldest person to ever win a first-term presidential election, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980.

or

• At 70, he will be the oldest person to ever become a first-term president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he became president in 1981.

The first option is more durable, as — gramatically — it will still be valid after taking office. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why in the world does his age matter in the first place? Obama was the first black President (that's big), if Hillary won, she would've been the first female President (that's big), but the oldest person? User1937 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The section is not about the importance of the age, but about a factual inaccuracy. Naturally you are freely to tackle the issue of age in a separate section or with the people who introduced it. Having said that, I agree with you that it not of any importance. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not ground-breaking. But, worth a sentence. Objective3000 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are unproved accusations in the LEAD?

The sexual accusations are all rumors, NOTHING has been proven. This should be removed, who's with me? User1937 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Remove.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I second this. There is as much evidence proven in a court of law that Bill Clinton is an offender: zero. Notice there's nothing about Hillary's e-mails in her lead (a case in which she was found to have done nothing wrong after two investigations). If (and it's a big if) Trump or Bill is ever indicted, tried and found guilty, it can go in. Until then, absolutely not. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is in the lead because this has been discussed in several RFC's (See: RFC Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations) and consensus was to have it added to the lead as stated. Note: It is an "accusation" and it's is balanced with his denial of the allegations. CBS527^Talk 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cbs527, RfC is still open so there has not been consensus to have it added to the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

See "L̶a̶n̶g̶u̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶c̶o̶n̶d̶u̶c̶t̶"̶ ̶#̶3̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶v̶e̶ Link for

Language in lead section about sexual misconduct CBS527^Talk 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus to include this after weeks of extensive discussion. --Tataral (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Tataral, doesn't make it true.--Malerooster (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened

It's really really long right now, especially the part about the sexual misconduct allegations (not even proven)... It's almost completely copied from the main article. The taxes bit is also a bit long. Should we trim it a bit? User1937 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the allegations should be trimmed.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the word "American" from the opening sentence. This is proven by him being president elect, as mentioned earlier on in the sentence. It's also a case of overlink Valentina Cardoso (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Malerooster (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not in the lede: 2005 audio recording, alleged sexual misconduct, false tweets?? , since none of them had a significant (to say nothing) influence in the presidential election and the final results.

All the following statements seem to be really unneccesary right now in the lead, meticulous DETAILS, and past incidents (media gossip) during a presidential campaign which finally had no influence on the final results of the Presidential election:

1.-"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" (Biased, speculative)

2.-"On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women; multiple women accused him of forcibly doing so shortly thereafter." (God, already included in the body content, besides, there is a whole article about this gossip, no need for this specific incident in the lead)

In my opinion, there is no place for this chit chat - (difficult to corroborate) allegations in the lede of an article about a Head of State. This is an encyclopedia and all those statements now turned into pure conjectures and "dirty trick campaign" stuff. Ajax1995 (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How has the success of Trump in the election turned all these reliably sourced facts into "pure conjectures"? And, picking nits, he is not Head of any State right now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There probably will have to be a reworking of the lede eventually, now that his candidacy is no longer the focus. However, that material was not "conjecture" or "dirty trick campaign stuff". The tape was a major influence on the campaign, in fact leading multiple Republicans to withdraw their support. The "controversial or false" wording was discussed extensively on this talk page, and consensus was to include it, because his use of false statements is so well documented as far beyond that of other politicians. Both items were inserted after much discussion and consensus, and it will take additional discussion and consensus to remove them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ajax1995 has been alerted about discretionary sanctions by Bishonen. Ajax1995, referring to well-referenced events and accusations as "gossip" or "chit chat" (and "assault" is not the same as "misconduct"; the former term has consensus) is demeaning, to put it mildly, and it suggests that you have difficulties remaining neutral. If that is indeed the case, you should probably stay away from this highly charged article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

mmm, not sure, Drmies, this is the talk page not the main article, the Neutrality is intact in the main article; therefore before removing anything, first I added a new discusion for consensus and different opinions about my very PERSONAL POV, and as you can see, I do not try to impose anything on the main article, that´s what the Talk Page is for; right? to exchange opinions and feedback; If you dislike my personal POVs in this talk page, OK, nothing wrong with that, is your very respectable personal opinion; but to express that such material, right now, (IMO) is filler content and unnecesary in the lead (not in the body content) since the election day is over, is totally valid, worthy of criticism (positive or negative), not of censorship. An apology if I do not answer right away, work schedule Ajax1995 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ajax1995: Your comment about Trump's "chit chat" (bullshitting) is on point. By now at least half a million 6,100,000 people have viewed the article; and many reasonable readers, including the press, may discount it as being a project of the Clinton–Kaine campaign (which is now dead). Not much we can do. A lot of of our hard-working colleagues understandably feel hurt and angered by recent events, and you can expect the article to become increasingly framed by that anger. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC) 09:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Just compare the difference between the language used on Trump´s lede (pejorative: false tweets, groping) and Hillary´s lede (peacock: influential speech, tackled, won far more) nothing about the E-mails and FBI investigation; I think we must keep the neutrality in both cases, a task that normal editors and administrators must solve. So, Dervorguilla, I Think solving this lede thing will still take too much time.Ajax1995 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a total joke yes. I can understand why now so many countries ban wikipedia, it is seems to be edited by politically biased people many who are crazy maybe even simply having mental problems and these people spew nonsense and push bias all over the place. I predict many people lost faith in "wikipedia" and start seeing it as I have now because of this bias.. compare Trump and Hillary Cliton not even close in bias. but trump won anyway and we will all avoid fight between us and russia for no one but a certain peoples interests so who cares. maybe if what news media says is true and trump is new hitler /musolini/ blah blah okay he will ban wikipedia anyway avoiding future problems. KMilos (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Should remove. It is a minor issue in relation to the topic and does not belong in the lead. The campaign is over and we now have the opportunity to follow neutrality in writing the article, without the distraction of issues the Clinton campaign sought to advance. No doubt as Trump assumes the presidency, there will be more important issues for the article. TFD (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the political positions part now?

It's all in the main article, let's just link to it the way it's linked in Barack Obama's second infobox. User1937 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, we can't, and you were way out of line to just go ahead and delete it. I will restore it. It has been restored. It cannot be deleted until consensus is reached here at the talk page to trim or remove it. You just started a discussion about that, above, but there has not been time for people to weigh in, much less for consensus to be reached. If you want you could transfer that discussion down here to the bottom of the page where it would be more prominent; we shouldn't have two different discussions going on. But you absolutely cannot act unilaterally like this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User1937: I agree with MelanieN that you were way out of line. You don't post a message about a HUGE deletion and then act on it FOUR MINUTES LATER. Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. But to be fair, out of the 44 President articles, none of them have a "political position" section, except if the election is ongoing. But, it's over. And the main article is in the infobox already, so I really don't see why people would be against this, I guess. But yes, it's important to get consensus.

So I'm asking for consensus. User1937 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I asked for another consensus above this (Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened), but you all aren't commenting in that? It seems like I only get consensus going when I go through with edits here :/ User1937 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I for one did comment in that earlier post of yours. (I agreed that we will need to trim this section, and probably to remove it entirely after he becomes president - replacing it with a link to the "political positions" article and a "presidency" section.) You ignored that and went ahead and removed it without even giving people time to respond. "Consensus" does not happen immediately, and none of these actions should be taken right now, the day after the election, when people may still want to know what his political positions are. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• OK, reduce I agree towards a consensus to shorten this -- mostly reasoning is that it's too long, and a bit from the precedent that such seem not the norm for a President-elect judging from the Obama [2008] area. It looks like the link moves up to his first info box. (And the title is wrong, but that's another matter and I'll fix it...) Markbassett (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Final results, Clinton received a majority of the popular vote

Simplistic wordings such as "he defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election" need to be reworded as Clinton won a majority of the votes[41], while Trump's candidates won a majority in the Electoral College, which is expected to appoint a president later. --Tataral (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This starts down a somewhat slippery slope. Saying she won the popular vote is true, but also not the whole story. She won by ~0.2% It was a statistical tie. In any case, its premature, as the counts are not even done yet. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-looks-like-clinton-will-win-the-popular-1478698530-htmlstory.html ResultingConstant (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a completely unnecessary level of detail. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a "statistical tie" as statistics aren't involved here. This is a count, not an estimate. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and note that in the George W. Bush article lead he says, "becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent." While that does not mean his win lacks legitimacy, it means he didn't overwhelmingly win either. Stats by the way use samples to estimate populations, but the final results are the population, hence agree with EvergreenFir it is not a statistical tie TFD (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If Hillary does win the popular vote, then we should note it similarly to how we note it in the 2000 related articles, as TFD suggests. But we need to wait for the final tallies, absentee and provisional ballots that are still outstanding and whatnot. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no final results at this point. Three states are still regarded as "too close to call" when I checked just now. We should include the tally by electoral college votes (and possibly number of states although that is less relevant) when it is finalized. We should also comment on the popular vote when it is finalized. Neither is appropriate for comment right now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, that's irrelevant. She lost. End of story.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You do remember the 2000 election, don't you? If she won more popular votes, that's relevant. Even if the Electoral College doesn't pick her. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, she lost. That does not make the popular vote irrelevant. It is newsworthy, especially if she won it, although it does not affect the result. If Trump winds up winning the popular vote we will certainly include that tally, won't we? --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed the section title here. It is absurd and wrong. She did not "win" in any sense. That is not how our elections work. She lost, via the electoral college. The popular vote is an afterthought. It should certainly be mentioned in the text, and possibly in the lede analogous to the mention in the George W. Bush article. AFTER it is finalized. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN, but does anyone know by what margin the popular vote favored Clinton? If she won the popular vote by e.g. 51%, or 60%, this should be mentioned for clarity. Otherwise biased readers on either side of the fence will jump to their own conclusions, assuming the margin was great, or not great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We won't know for several days. Votes are still being tallied. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN - I think a couple close ones like Michigan have mandatory automatic recounts, even though it won't alter the overall result. Mostly I think this point isn't significant in news at the moment, preponderance is 'Trump surprise win' about 20:1 over any afterthought about the popular vote. I think just follow the cites and cover in proportion to how the coverage is. Markbassett (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you paint it as "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. Dustin (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Tataral -- Just follow the cites and you'll see that it's not WP:DUE coverage ... I'm seeing it's about 20 "Donald wins" or "surprise win" to any mention of popular vote (googling, ~75:4 million), and a lot of the popular vote mentions seem afterthought to 'Hillary lost' such as 'Hillary lost, but may still win the popular vote'. So the wording to reflect the prominence is 'Trump surprise win'. Markbassett (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Copy edited heading per MelanieN and WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why can't we start the lead with "Donald Trump is an American politician who...." ?

User1937 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be kind of redundant, no? Obviously POTUS-elect is an American politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. It would be redundant now. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding new material is not a revert

This edit seems problematic to me. Is there any substantive reason for it? There was no edit-warring today about this material, and much if it was added material, not even changing what was already there. An admission of criminal behavior is very serious stuff, and we ought to be neutral and accurate about such stuff, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be reverted to keep it NPOV.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read up on the definition of a revert. I'd hoped to see the New Anything not the Same Old Anything back to the party. I do give you credit, wasting no time etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." What prior version included this material? It's obviously needed per WP:NPOV. We can't just hide the fact that many reliable sources construed the Access Hollywood tape as something other than a confession of criminality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

1928??

The general election section says the following: "Trump's win simultaneously marked the first time that Republicans gained control over both the White House and Congress since 1928."

The GOP controlled the WH/Senate/House during the GWBush years. If there's some other meaning intended, it needs to be clarified, otherwise it's flat-out wrong (more specifically, the cited Fortune article got it wrong). Aldaryx (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The wording is correct, it says "gained".

Agree, I don't understand what meaningful fact that is trying to convey. The Republicans already hold control over both Houses of Congress, which is easily enough verified at 114th Congress, so nothing will be simultaneously "gained", and if the fact is claiming that Republicans haven't held a majority in Congress and in the Executive office since 1928, simply checking at the 108th Congress demonstrates that isn't true either. Shiggity (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

somebody gonna fix this?

"he will be the oldest person to ever become a assume the presidency."

Fierogt (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Colleges attended by Donald Trump

I suggest adding the following information to this article:

Donald Trump attended Fordham University from 1964 to 1966. After two years, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated from U. Penn.'s Wharton School in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree in economics.

Source: http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/where-did-donald-trump-go-to-college-education-young-biography-news/ published May 27, 2016 Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

RM notice

Talk:Trump#Requested move 9 November 2016 There is a move request ongoing, I just thought I would let you know. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Errors by user Robotic131225189311

1. This edit is clearly incorrect per source and 1RR prevents me from fixing it. 2. @Robotic131225189311: Please refer to the ArbCom remedies template near the top of this page. In short, you can't simply re-revert here. Even without the remedies, we don't resolve editing disagreements by revert and edit summary between two editors; that is what the article talk page is for. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:  Done - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but only partly done. I still dispute this edit, and the editsum shows cluelessness as to WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I wondered why so much fuss over an extra 's'. Hopefully fixed now. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Is correcting violations of the ArbCom restrictions exempt from 1RR? If so, I could have saved you the trouble. If not, you violated 1RR to save me from committing that egregious offense (thanks yet again). Anyone? Bueller? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is exempt. It's arguable whether it should be; I can see good reasons for both exempt & not. I am relying on the definition of "revert" at WP:3RR - An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. - As my edits were consecutive, they are one revert. Of course, I'm happy to plead my case at WP:AE if anyone feels so inclined. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This makes no sense.[42] Even if it were appropriate for the lead, it's awkwardly worded and haphazardly placed without regard for chronology. Not happening. Doc talk 10:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So he's reinstated the same bit of crap for the 3rd time within 24 hours.[43] Can we get a block for 1RR violation and can someone remove it? It's sloppy and completely undue for the lead. Embarrassingly bad. Doc talk 10:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• This edit is also worrying. Thoughts on a 1RR exemption based on WP:BLPDELETE? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable. This editor needs to be blocked. Now. Doc talk 11:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This could be a first, me completely agreeing with Doc. This is not the kind of article where aggressive incompetence even after warnings and corrections can be tolerated, and a DE complaint at ANI should not be required. Is Bishonen in the house by any chance? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(As surprising this may seem to some, not every single "Trump supporter" is a knuckle-dragging, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, LGBQT-hatin', wall-worshipping, inbred cretin. I'm honored that we can agree on some things. Huzzah!) Doc talk 07:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea you are a "Trump supporter", and I honestly don't categorize editors that way anyway. I categorize them according to whether they are supporters of Wikipedia policy, process, and good faith collaboration. None of which is a comment about you either way. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

One foot out the door, but I'll look at it when I get back. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

I kind of wish somebody had warned the user about edit warring sooner, and about the 1RR restriction rather than just the usual 3RR warning. But I see they have continued to revert, at least a fourth time, after being warned, so I've blocked for 31 hours. Also they should be alerted to the discretionary sanctions for American politics and BLP, I've done that. Nobody had pointed them specifically to the restrictions at the top of this talkpage, on their own page, which is always a good idea as soon as it looks like a new user (= new to the page) is unaware of them. (I've done it now.) You can say they ought to read the warnings at the top of the page without having to be told to, but in practice I don't think we expect that. There's a daunting and off-putting amount of stuff at the top of the page. (I'm glad somebody at least collapsed the wikiprojects, but still.) And who knows if they ever looked at the talkpage? So, only the short 3RR block for now. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

See my opening comment here. With respect, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect even a newer user to respond to a freaking ping and read what was written there. WP:CIR. They had more than ample advice and warning, even if we failed to follow procedure to the letter. Thanks for the block. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Together with the warnings, it should hopefully hold them. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

One of the things about the DS, as I understand it, is that people generally will not be sanctioned for violating them until after they have received the OFFICIAL warning on their talk page. When you put {{subst:alert|ap}} on their talk page, it gets logged, and they are thereafter expected to abide by the rules and be sanctioned if they don't. It creates an actual record, which they cannot remove, showing that they have been warned. "They should have read the notice" or "I pinged them" is not considered to be adequate, documented warning in terms of issuing blocks and/or bans (except possibly in the most egregious cases). Anyhow, if you see someone violating the DS, don't mess around with other ways of warning them. Put the template on their talk page. In my case I usually add a custom-written paragraph explaining exactly what that means and what behavior of theirs triggered it. But it is the official templated warning that puts them on notice. Bishonen, would you agree with this? --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, MelanieN, I have to agree. It's a very bureaucratic system, but we have to comply with it, because it's only the official alert template that "counts", which matters a lot if the user appeals our discretionary sanctions. On the upside, it's not hard to add a ds alert template. Melanie has provided the specific American politics template above. This is the general form of the alert, for all areas: {{subst:alert|topic}}. Replace "topic" with the official and also intuitive code for the topic area (ap for American politics, blp for biographies, cc for climate change, and so on). To make doubly sure, there's a list of those topic codes here (scroll down a little). Bishonen | talk 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

Well I'm just learning this after 3.5 years and about 30K edits, and it's not like I don't pay attention or don't care about doing things the right way. The logical conclusion is that the DS are largely pointless unless there happens to be someone at my level or above around. "Bureaucracy" is spot on, and it's my understanding that excessive bureaucracy is something to be avoided, not embraced. Added to my list of Just How Things Are At En-wiki, Deal With It. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Protests

I assume someone will add information about the current Protests going on? Seems important to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this seems big[44]. We will have to consider whether to mention this, and where/how. --Tataral (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Big? Yes, if WP:DUE is about the font size used for the headline in that bulwark of journalism, The Telegraph. Depending on other RS, probably has a place in one of the many Trump sub-articles. Not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If we mention it anywhere it should be in the Presidential campaign article, not this biographical article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a conversation at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Protests.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose this may be out-of-place in this thread, but it seems almost as if this biography is being used to "protest Trump" as well - nowhere near Neutral POV. It is not the function of an *encyclopedia* to criticize individuals and their actions. In many cases this goes far beyond what is normally said about a political candidate, one who has never been convicted of a criminal act. Dfoofnik (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if Donald Trump had been a presidential candidate remotely resembling anything the world has ever seen, Wikipedia neutrality policy does not require us to give equal treatment to article subjects in any category. We are driven by reliable sources. We neither criticize nor praise, we simply report. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Claim that Donald Trump saved the world from nuclear war

I suggest we add a note on this article that the Presidential adviser to Vladimir Putin, Sergei Glazyev, said that Donald Trump has saved the world from nuclear war following his election. This already has precedent in other articles whose profiles were praised as saving the world. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922890/The-Kremlin-says-victory-Clinton-sparked-World-War-Three-electing-Trump-saved-world-Armageddon.html#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hagiologically ridiculous. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

stop trolling User:JackofOz — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth adding to Sergey Glazyev, although the Daily Mail is not always regarded as WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

While it's pretty clear from my user page that I hate both Trump and the Mail, pretty much every any news source you can read on Trump right now is going to be POV one way or another, and new information should ideally from a cross-section of pieces whose bias cancels each other out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two days after the election and Trump has yet to take office. The claim, if it was made, is silly and the person making the claim holds no office. Further, his opinion is likely tainted by the fact that the current president froze his U.S assets and he is banned from entering the U.S. Objective3000 (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

new information should ideally from a cross-section of pieces whose bias cancels each other out Did I just hear that from an admin? WP:FALSEBALANCE. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That link you supplied mentions things like the moon landings being a hoax and that the earth is flat; the only news source I know who mentions that is the Sunday Sport. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I know of nothing in WP:NPOV or any other policy that supports your statement highlighted above. My guide is WP:DUE, whether or not that results in "a cross-section of pieces whose bias cancels each other out". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Saved the world from Nuclear war? How? By destroying the USA without need for any war is the only way he could do it. Trump is the one talking about starting wars all the time! Most people think silly trump is going to start a nuke war even if he doesnt intend too, with his ignorant ancient trade ideas.--Simon19800 (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How do people believe this when he just defeated one of the biggest warmongerers in American history?108.54.106.8 (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Filmography article

On Donald Trump filmography, it opens "Donald Trump is an American actor, television personality..." should it state "actor" on this article? At most, it should say "television personality". ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - most of his filmography is cameo appearances, and starring in a reality TV show is different from acting in a regular show or movie. Feel free to make the change. JasperTECH (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Many of his statements have been false"

First things first, I am not American, nor am I a conservative of any stripe.

However, the comparison between the leads of the two candidates couldn't be more different.

Trump has made false statements, but if we look at Politifact - a website that Republicans condemn when it highlights their errors - [http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ roughly half of its entries on Hillary Clinton are "Half-true" or less. This includes several "pants on fire" during the campaign, including one relating to her FBI investigation, a completely false accusation about Trump's view on the auto industry during the recession, and calling herself the only candidate who never pledged to raise taxes on the middle class.

This is, of course, a lower percentange of untruthful statements than what Politifact has listed for Trump. But where does "many" begin when you say a politician has made "many" statements that are false? If both candidates are listed by a Pulitzer-prize winning website with a majority of untruthful statements, it should be in both candidates' leads. If not, have it in neither and develop the details later on. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

See older discussions on this. In short: numerous reliable sources (incl. those that do a lot of fact-checking) have remarked on the extraordinary amount of falsehoods that Trump has said during the campaign, both in absolute terms and relative to other politicians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think we have a major POV problem when we compare both ledes, partly based on RS though.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the actual link to the RfC about whether to include "or false." Essentially, I think, though Hillary Clinton has said many completely false things, the coverage of them in reliable sources isn't as great, so they don't have as much weight. That may not be fair, but it's just how Wikipedia is, and it has it's strengths and weaknesses. WP:BALASP says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." JasperTECH (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Uneven press coverage is not what this is about. It's generally accepted that "all politicians lie" - that is, they say some things that are not true. That's a given. Hillary Clinton is in that group. Out of her statements that get challenged (and remember, those are the only statements that the fact-checkers rate), some are exaggerations, some are misrepresentations, and a few are out-and-out false ("pants on fire"). If that were the pattern with Trump it would not be worth mentioning, because that is the pattern with most politicians. The difference is that when they rate Trump's statements that have been challenged, the pattern is different. An extraordinary number of Trump's statements turn out to be out-and-out false. He does not fit the normal pattern of a politician who shades the truth. He is a person who often says things that are simply, provably, 100% false. That unusual pattern has been commented on by numerous reliable sources, and that is the basis for our sentence in the lede. I agree it is an unusual thing to say about a president-elect. Right now the lede, and the article, are focused on his history up to and including the campaign. By the time he is president I assume we will be shifting away from campaign-focused information, and that sentence may go. That may also depend on whether he changes his approach to the facts now that he is no longer in campaign mode. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Granted, Trump said a lot of crap. However he also said a lot of truths. Fact is, he talks a lot more than most politicians, and doesn't mince his words… The apparent bias may stem from Trump's big mouth and his self-styled "truthful hyperbole". Add to that the propensity of journalists to select the most juicy bits for endless replay and amplification, add to that the failure to grant him a talent for irony ("Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's 33'000 emails that she deleted" — oh my God he's a double agent for Russia, quick let's hang him for high treason!), and here's a recipe for systemic bias. I for one have been genuinely puzzled as to why Trump was ever considered racist, while I never saw him behave in a racist way during 15 months of campaigning. Oh sure, he said Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers (reality check: "Mexican" is not a race, neither is "Muslim"), everybody noticed the words but failed to rate this outburst as simply making an exaggerated point for effect. When he visited Mexico, he behaved like a total gentleman with the President and the feeling was mutual. A real racist or Mexican-hater would have taken this opportunity to threaten the country or further demean its citizens. — JFG ^talk 18:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice little essay defending Trump, but not very convincing. ("Sure he lies a lot, but that's OK because.....") The point here is that he "says a lot of crap", i.e. says things that aren't true, to a much greater extent than other politicians do, a fact that Reliable Sources have taken note of. He broke the mold when it comes to political departures from the truth, and this was reported, not as editorializing, not as opinion, but as demonstrated fact. I'll ignore your equally unconvincing attempt to explain away racist-sounding statements as "making an exaggerated point for effect", since racism is not the subject of this thread. MelanieN alt (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

wow as i read more of this page this bias becomes so clear. so many political editing by crazies who tried to influence election.. but why was this allowed?? i cannot believed i donated once to this biased website. yet still trump won despite such bias, this at least shows great power and intelligence of trump voters to see past such biased media and lies by an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a political liberal blog. i hope people are ashamed but unlikely because of such crazy insane biased people. this type of thing is what caused people to "disappear" in communist russia, bias overrides history accuracy or truth/attempt at maybe nonbias. insane truly insane people KMilos (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a lot of reliable sources saying Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Should I add them to the lede? 108.54.106.8 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Presidential Template for Trump

Normally any article about a president would have a template at the bottom with articles about their presidency but this is the first time we have had one that amassed a large company and never was in public office or military (outside school). There is a template but it's of his family and his company. I created one specifically for his presidency in case there is a consensus to do so or merge it with the existing one. The image is just a placeholder until he gets an official portrait. What do other users think of the idea of a seperate one for his presidency like the other presidents?ShadowDragon343 (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support – In another discussion, I suggested splitting the existing Trump navbox into one for his family and businesses, and one for his political activities and presidency. Your draft is a great start. Some Trump articles would have one navbox and some the other one; very few would need both. — JFG ^talk 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The Bush Family has a template as well as ones for H. W. and W.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The placeholder image looks great! Creating a separate template for the Trump presidency is a good idea.--FeralOink (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done FYI the "yuge" {{Trump}} template has been split into {{Trump businesses}}, {{Trump family}} and {{Trump presidency}} and each article mentioned has been reassigned the appropriate template. Next step is to retire {{Trump}} as obsolete (not sure if it should be deleted just yet but that may be its ultimate fate). I have also restructured the Trump businesses part to look cleaner and include up-to-date information in all subsections. I think it should be further split to separate the media appearances from the rest (for example it includes comedy skits, board games and cameo appearances in movies, which make no sense in a template about business affairs). I'll get to that a bit later today.

The presidency navbox still needs work; your draft above might be a good source of inspiration. See also {{Donald Trump series}} which is now stable.

Further comments welcome here or at the individual navbox talk pages. — JFG ^talk 11:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are his "political stances" still in the main article?

Why is Donald Trump the first President (or soon to be) to have a section devoted to his "political stances". If people want to check out his political positions, the main article is linked in the Trump series template. I know a lot of folks here are very very hessitant in deleting a currently major section, but can't we face the facts and admit that it shouldn't be there anymore? User1937 (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New article: Donald Trump's business career

Edit request: Change the entire business career section to the text on this page.

Before the election, I came up with a proposal to split Donald Trump's business career into a new article, citing the fact that the article is really huge (and now it's even bigger at 91 kB of readable prose size, according to this script). WP:SIZESPLIT encourages that most articles be split above 60 kB of readable prose size, and should almost certainly be split above 100 kB. Other sections should most probably be split too, but this section is just about discussing the business career section.

I ended up deciding to wait because other editors pointed out that any changes made before the election might have to be undone afterwards depending on whether he was elected or not. Now, since the political areas of the article are only going to expand, I think it makes sense to split off the business ventures section of the article into a new one and include a summarized version in the main article instead. Below are my proposals, which are up to date as of November 10.

• The proposed shortened text to put in the main article, which will eliminate about 11 kB of readable prose size.
• The new article. This is basically just the modern "Business career" section on Wikipedia, with a new lead paragraph – feel free to improve it.

I believe these suggestions are cautious enough that they can be implemented right away if editors are in favor of doing so, and once another full article is created, the version on the main article can be safely trimmed down more, bit by bit. I know that removing some parts will generate a lot of controversy, so I did my best to trim only obvious paragraphs. JasperTECH (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I totally agree with splitting off his business career now. However I think it's even more urgent to mercilessly trim everything related to this nasty and long-winded presidential campaign, because most of it is a sheer duplicate of stuff mentioned at length in dedicated articles (and those could be trimmed of excess detail too). Happy to contribute to the copyediting if we don't get too much pushback. — JFG ^talk 18:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support some type of split to reduce the size of this particular article. I am not sure what the best way to split it would be, but this seems to be one way to do it. Tony Tan · talk 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All right – I've created the article. Unfortunately, I don't have extended-confirmed abilities yet, so if someone could implement the shortened change to the main article, that'd be fantastic. And honestly, I don't expect many valid reasons not to create this article. You know, WP:BOLD and everything. JasperTECH (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Tony Tan · talk 05:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tony_Tan! Just one quick follow-up edit, since the Trump Force One image under net worth isn't displaying properly due to a modified dash.

Text to delete: File:Trump Force One at Valdosta Regional Airport a&nbsp;— cropped.jpg

Replace with: File:Trump Force One at Valdosta Regional Airport a - cropped.jpg

Thanks again. I'll be getting extended-protected abilities in a week and a half or something, so I won't be bothering anyone for too long. In the mean time, I'll work on some other articles.

JasperTECH (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed [45] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Donald Trump" or "Donald J. Trump"?

How should he be referred as as President? Because I've seen both forms used and I'm not sure there is yet a consensus on that. Or is it too early to bring this up? Cheers, κατάσταση 18:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Or is it too early to bring this up? Let's wait until his son is elected before we add the J:). Objective3000 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You think his son could beat Chelsea? I suggest we start an article on the presidency of Donald Trump if there is not one already. Maybe the articles on the Trump organization and The Apprentice are adequate for his business activities. TFD (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Once he becomes president next year, there's every chance the article will need to be moved to Donald J. Trump; his official social media profiles (Twitter, Facebook) use his middle initial. I think it is too soon to do so now as it's not in the common vernacular as is with John F. Kennedy or even James K. Polk. So many people have known him for decades as just Donald Trump, but it is still worth pointing out … only time will tell! CityFeedback ^talk 10:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Once he becomes president, he will establish how he wishes to be known. If the White House webpage refers to him as Donald J. Trump; if his employees and surrogates refer to him as "President Donald J. Trump"; if his official portrait (and we should put that in here if we can get it) is titled Donald J. Trump; then it will be clear that is his presidential name and we should move the article. If these sources mainly refer to him as "Donald Trump" then we will keep it here. Nothing should be done until he assumes office. A president gets to establish how he/she is referred to by contemporaries and posterity - whether as Richard M. Nixon or Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter. (And I'm puzzled - you said his Facebook and Twitter profiles use his middle initial, but those entities are titled without it..) MelanieN alt (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to seduce married woman

This BLP presently says:

“ He also speaks of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily." ”

The cited source says very clearly that those efforts were unsuccessful, and so I suggest this instead:

“ He also speaks of his unsuccessful efforts to seduce a married woman, saying: "I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it....I moved on her very heavily." ”

Without this correction, we suggest that he "moved heavily" in a forcible way (especially given what the previous sentences of the BLP currently say about forcible kissing and groping). The cited source says, "In that audio, Trump discusses a failed attempt to seduce a woman, whose full name is not given in the video. 'I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,' Trump is heard saying."

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a clarification that will better conform to reliable sources. JasperTECH (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - no, do not resurrect the debate so soon after the last time. This is in the section 4.3.4 Sexual misconduct allegations, and I'd suggest that is already WP:UNDUE excessive detail on it for a BLP, and that perhaps since the election is over and the 11-year+ topic now lacks any potential WP:SOAPBOX effect it may time it can instead get discussed as something to be yanked. In any case, I'd think an 11-year ago tape will shortly get squeezed out by more significant actual events during 2017-2020. The perspective on tape is now a note of the whole of it was both it had no actual sex and that it little affected the campaign or prolonged coverage -- so judging by precedents the whole tape bits should wind up as less _total_ than the 6 lines of the Clinton 1992 Presidential Campaign Gennifer Flowers affair. Just sayin the tape turned out to be only a medium flap. Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - That he was unsuccessful is a comment about her, not him. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote

I have removed the line about Clinton winning the popular vote, as this count is still being conducted and the numbers are not finalized. This is not yet a fact, and should not be a part of Wikipedia until it is a fact. This reflects a discussion and change on Hillary Clinton.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reporting it as a fact and we follow verifiability, not truth. TFD (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about extended-autoconfirmed protection

Is the extended-autoconfirmed protection added yesterday (which is currently set as "indefinite") going to be kept infinitely, or reduced to high-risk semi-protection once the vandalism risk has reduced? I understand that this is among the most controversial articles on here right now, but I thought it was only Wikipedia policy to infinitely extended-autoconfirmed protect articles relating to Israel and Palestine. My understanding is that it is only used temporarily on other articles. By "indefinite", does it mean that it will be extended-autoconfirmed protected until the vandalism risk goes down (which could be several weeks/months)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gourleyo (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite is convenient but not infinite, and there's no real reason it should last for a long time. When assessing how long it will last, we look at how hot the topic is, and any related vandalism on other articles. Obviously within one or two days of the election it's still going to be quite hot but I don't see it lasting for several weeks or months. I hereby ping @Ks0stm:, the protecting admin, for any further comment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, I thought it was probably protected indefinitely because we don't know how long he is going to be this controversial (among many) for. Regardless of my own views, I had no intention to vandalise, or even edit the page; I was simply curious because protection beyond semi/move is modaretely rare.

Gourleyo (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gourleyo and Zzuuzz: Yeah, the only reason I didn't set an expiry is because I didn't want the article completely unprotected upon expiry, and there's no way to have it automatically roll back to semi-protection instead of no protection. Any admin can feel free to reset this to semi whenever they feel the time is right to give semi-protection another chance. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I guessed - we don't know how long the page is going to be a top target for vandals, and if you set an expiry date, it will automatically revert to having no protection at all (and since he's the future President the vandalism risk is likely to remain high, so the admins probably want the protection back to semi).

Gourleyo (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

He is not President-elect of the United States.... yet

hello, this point must be changed... Donald Trump is not, yet, elected... Sg7438 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sg7438: could you clarify your point? The link you shared describes his situation quite perfectly, thus substantiating why he should be listed as the president elect.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the Electoral Colleges don't cast their votes until December 19. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

of course : if i understand american election (i'm french), he'll be elected december 19th... He seems to be just expecting the Electoral College vote, no ? so, he's not president elected, yet : let's wait : tell me if i'm wrong ! Sg7438 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. He is receiving top Secret Service briefings, which are only given to POTUS and POTUS-elect. Tylr00 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

See https://www.usa.gov/inauguration-2017#item-213261 Cheers! Tylr00 (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's "President Elect" not "Elected". Also, per Presidential Transition Act of 1963, the title of President Elect is used for the apparent winner of the election between the general election in November, and the inauguration in January.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see President-elect of the United States, which is a correct description of Trump's position between now and the inauguration. The vote of the Electoral College does not change his title (assuming the electors vote "faithfully" on December 19). General Ization ^Talk 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Obama is calling him "President-elect"- I think it doesn't get any more official than that. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Religion

I saw a previous conversation on this, but I think someone should add a section for Trump's religion in the info box. He is a member, albeit inactive, of the Reformed Church in America and his membership is in Marble Collegiate Church on Fifth Avenue in New York.

• You should probably read through the discussions as to why religion is generally considered inappropriate for politicians' infoboxes. This is much more so for "inactive" members of any religion. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I truly don't understand how not putting Trump's religion is justified. The "inactive members" thing would appear to not be relevant as he is roughly as active as recent prior presidents have been (sure, George Bush was a born-again, but others are very similar to Trump), he said numerous times on the campaign trail that "[he is] a Presbyterian," etc. etc. "Generally considered inappropriate" yet in basically every American politician's infobox. Just because of bunch of Wikipedia editors think that to contempt Western religion makes them intellectual doesn't mean it should inexplicably be phased out of infoboxes, starting with Trump. --OettingerCroat (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert to image that gained consensus

There was a consensus that File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg is the best image to use here, and yet another editor put in the current image, claiming some others liked it on this talk page. However, lacking a detailed discussion and consensus like the other one received, the above-linked image must be used until a new consensus is reached. This is standard practice. I cannot enforce this again due to 1RR; I suggest someone else does. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. --TBM10 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

TBM10, just as a note, the end result of the discussion above was that File:President Trump 2.jpg be used. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, most agreed that the File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg was not appropriate or NPOV. Overall, most people agreed that Image 3, or File:President Trump 2.jpg, should be used as it is more neutral.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh my god, people. Please look at the many discussions of the infobox image, which received votes from scores of editors and went through a formal analysis and vote based on photography and appearance attributes. Just because a small handful of editors now seem to like this one just based on gut feeling, saying "I like this one", you're making a mess of something that actually achieved a proper consensus. Respect it, or again open a full RfC with multiple image options and tagging multiple WikiProjects and other relevant groups. What you have here is an embarrassing form of 'consensus'. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

100% agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much discussion on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump New Picture

I know, his picture was changed 30 minutes to an hour ago but based on all the other president pictures, it is no good and looks unprofessional in my opinion.

I found a picture that looks like a presidential picture and I think should be used. I am currently getting permission from the photographer.

Example 1

Example 2 --Dyl1G (User talk:Dyl1G) 2:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you can get permission, Example 1 is pretty good. If you receive permission, let us know. As for now, the current image is more NPOV than the original, but hopefully you can get their permission.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dyl1G and ZiaLater: I understand you are proposing a picture change in good faith, however it will not be accepted unless you run a formal RfC. The sooner you start the process, the sooner it will end. Besides, I personally don't see how the longstanding picture is disparaging; it actually gathered consensus repeatedly over many many other pictures that various editors deemed "more presidential". In this picture, Trump looks serious and attentive, his face is in focus, the colors are neutral, well it's just fine. (And for the record, I once advocated for a picture change as well, at least an edit of this one to remove the microphone and background artefact, but I accepted consensus to keep this one). — JFG ^talk 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the last big push to change the image consisted of a week or two of heated debate in a series of talk threads, followed by a big RfC. After the RfC got several dozen !votes, the activity died to the point that the archive bot archived the RfC before it was closed. And nobody complained about the lack of a close, nobody restored the RfC from the archive or asked that that be done, because we were all suffering from severe infobox image fatigue. I think many of us still are, I know I am. In the end, all that editor time and energy were wasted. My advice is to wait for the official White House portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Agreed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@JFG How do I start a formal Rfc? --Dyl1G (User talk:Dyl1G) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dyl1G: Instructions are at WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

In the first line 'Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, reality television star, and' change the word "star" to host or presenter. In the U.S. ther term 'star" connotates a professional actor or performer. Changing to host will pnot denigrate Trump or his role. Smarkham01 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Star" seems a bit WP:PEACOCKy. Changed to "personality". Merriam-Webster sense 4b: "a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of president-elect

Re [46] [47]

I get that there is disagreement in this area in the world, and I get that many people see their viewpoints on certain style issues as the only correct ones regardless of community consensus, but I do not see support at MOS:JOBTITLES for Michipedian's reasoning as to the word "the" and common vs. proper nouns. I understand the reasoning, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but that's beside the point. I note that "president-elect" occurs 15 times uncapitalized at President-elect of the United States. Since JOBTITLES represents the community consensus on this, we needn't look any further. Anyone is free to seek a new community consensus, but the way to do that is not by revert and edit summary in mainspace.

When commenting, please bear in mind that it's not about what seems more correct to you, but what is supported by Wikipedia's guideline on the matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my reasoning is supported by the third bullet point in the link you provided.

"When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)"

According to this, I believe the following are all correct:

- "Donald Trump is President-elect of the United States."

- "Barack Obama is President of the United States."

- "Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States."

- "Barack Obama is the president of the United States."

Michipedian (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to reconcile that with the non-capitalization in "as well as chairman and president of The Trump Organization". "Chairman of The Trump Organization" and "President of The Trump Organization" are both titles that are no less "proper names" than "President-elect of the United States", and there is no "the" preceding them. The fact that there are no Wikipedia articles for those titles seems irrelevant for this purpose; they are still titles.
Nevertheless, your position is not completely baseless per guideline as I thought, so I'll concede assuming no one else jumps in with a stronger counter. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Michipedian on this fine point of orthography. — JFG ^talk 20:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If "Chairman" and "President" are official titles in the governmental structure of The Trump Organization, then they should be capitalized as well. Michipedian (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Re [48] [49] @Spartan7W: Your editsum suggests that you did not see mine or read this thread. Are you disputing the conclusion reached and agreed upon here? If so, on what basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the "oldest person" thing really belong in the lead?

This may well have been been discussed before, and have rolled off into the archives. My query isn't about the niceties of being the oldest person to become a first-term president, which is all I see above,[50] but about whether it's appropriate to have it in the lead at all. Mentioning it further down (currently in the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section) is OK I guess, but in the lead? As User:1937 cogently said above, "Obama was the first black President (that's big), if Hillary won, she would've been the first female President (that's big), but the oldest person?" I'd remove it myself, but I'm kind of scrupulous about not editing the article, in order to remain able to admin it. Bishonen | talk 08:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

I support it. Age seems relevant. I don't know how much the media have talked about his age, but it was a big issue in John McCain's campaign and he would have been 72 at inauguration. Between 2009 McCain and 2017 Trump, I'd put my money on 2017 Trump as more likely to die or become disabled in office (McCain is still kickin' and smilin' at 80). That Trump sets a new record seems lead-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we work in "bigoted" in between "oldest" and "person"? Doc talk 08:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

you will put money on this? i will take this bet on Trump being just fine for maybe even 8yrs! how much? KMilos (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say I would put money on Trump dying or becoming disabled in office. I said that seems more likely than it did for McCain in his campaign, something that was a big issue in the media. Why, you ask? Because personality and worldview, etc, have been shown to be factors in longevity, and I think McCain's tend to favor longevity more than Trump's. That's obviously just my opinion, and I know nothing of the history of longevity in either man's family. But it was a silly aside, the bottom line is that the new record is more than a Trivial Pursuit factoid. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The oldest seemed important for William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan and youngest elected for JFK. TFD (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Major demonstrations against Trump

Now "major demonstrations against Trump" is on every frontpage where I live (not the US); the global coverage of the demonstrations is extensive, and it is clear that it will have to be mentioned in the article, and in my opinion also be mentioned briefly (one sentence) in the lead. Also, Trump has directly responded/engaged with the demonstrators on Twitter in his usual way (spewing invectives). --Tataral (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Police In Portland Say Anti-Trump Protest Is Now a ‘Riot’, TIME
• Protests against Donald Trump's win turn violent, AJE
• Second night of Trump protests in US cities, FT
• Civil rights a major concern on second day of anti-Trump protests, Reuters
• Chaos in Portland as police declare anti-Trump protest a ‘riot’, AP

"Trump has directly responded/engaged with the demonstrators on Twitter in his usual way (spewing invectives)".. more insane people.. why are people like this even allowed to edit on such controversial article with such obvious and clear bias?? just give up, Donald Trump won and will be president of the united states, he will ally with putin and avoid ww3 so be thankful that nuclear apocalypse does not happen due to silly attempt to overthrow assad for who knows whos gain KMilos (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, Tataral, Trump has NOT directly responded/engaged with the demonstrators on Twitter by "spewing invectives". This is what Donald Trump said on Twitter today, 11 Nov 2016 about the demonstrators (or rioters, according to the NY Post/AP article you listed): "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!" That is not invective, but rather, is remarkably tolerant about rioters who are causing severe damage to property and also physically harming innocent bystanders.

I would recommend waiting to add content about the protests of a fair election, as they are recent, and Wikipedia is not a source of current news.--FeralOink (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong golf course

In the third paragraph of Section 2.1.6, the positioning of the sentence "In June 2015, Trump made an appeal objecting to an offshore windfarm (Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm) being built within sight of the golf course,[92] which was dismissed by five justices at the UK Supreme Court in December 2015.[93]" implies that the wind farm was built in sight of the Turnberry course, not the Aberdeen course on the other side of the country. Should the sentence be moved to the previous paragraph for clarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.187.230 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up! — JFG ^talk 23:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT REQUEST WHERE WIKIPEDIA SHOULD JUST STICK TO THE FACTS RATHER THAN SPECULATION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PROCESS.

Please REMOVE "He was elected as the 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election, defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and will take office on January 20, 2017. At 70 years old, Trump will be the oldest person to assume the presidency." As Mr. Trump has not been elected yet by the Electoral College which should confirm their choice on December 19 2016 according to the Constitution, under circumstances prevailing at the time and under the fact that Mr. Trump did not garner the majority of the popular votes...hence he is not the American people president of choice. I will circulate this request on Social media. WIKIPEDIA CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT if it wants to be considered as a trusted source.

REPLACE WITH: " He ran for the position of 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election, coming second by popular votes count behind Hillary Clinton, however deemed president-elect on the assumption that, as customary but not by any provision of the Constitution, all Electors comprising the Electoral College in a State will vote for the candidate who received the majority of the popular vote in that state."

YPLeroux (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done See the definition of President-elect of the United States. — JFG ^talk 16:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Fly-by comment-Yeah,the correction to document these trivial finer aspects seem to be the lone hope to delay the inevitable as long as possible!But given the post-poll environment, the sentence proposed by YPLeroux (talk · contribs) is a classic!Sorry, that it does not conform to the article of President-elect of the United States. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 19:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Bashir280 (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done You have not stated what changes you would propose to the article. General Ization ^Talk 20:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

President (elect) should come before businessman

It is with all the other Presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3020:2B00:200:70FE:3C0B:85DF:889D (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc about Donald Trump's new photo proposal

Delisted RfC pending resolution of image licensing issues. Actually you could start over with a new RfC, cleaner that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the infobox of Donald Trump after permission from the photographer contain this photo? Click here to see the photo CommentThe source and licensing of the photograph is unclear. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC) There's a credit at the Washington Post. I'd also like to clarify whether Dyl1G, the proposer, is confident in obtaining permission to re-use this image commercially and on any site (for example a CC-BY-SA licence). Somehow I find it unlikely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Can be used here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_Image_2016.jpg --MattMcClainPhotography (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC) LOL, that was quick. Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you do us a favour and confirm the licensing by either adding something on your website or contacting the OTRS team. See Donating copyrighted materials for more information. Until that happens I suggest for your protection we don't use this image. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry I am deleting it zzuuzz . I am not the real photographer. Just a friend of the Photographer. I ask if someone can contact the photographer to upload the sourced image. It will be deleted soon. Kind Regards. Not --MattMcClainPhotography (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC) I doubt thats the real image and author. Could someone contact the Image Photographer and ask about an image license? That will fix it otherwise we should delete the image that has been uploaded here. No drama.. Just that anyone can upload the image and add details. Simple. Get a verified Yes you can use it from the Photographer then Bob is your uncle! --103.27.222.88 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC) The proposed photo is better than the one currently used. It is more NPOV Someone might want to de-list and hat this RfC until licensing issues are satisfactorily resolved. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC) I found the license. I will post it. It is from Getty. -- Dyl1G http://www.gettyimages.com/license/622479256 This photo is under the "Rights-managed" license. As it states "Limited to the specific use, medium, period of time, print run, placement, size of content, and territory selected, and any other restrictions that accompany the content on the Getty Images website (or any other method of content delivery) or in an order confirmation or invoice. Non-Exclusive, meaning that you do not have exclusive rights to use the content. Getty Images can license the same content to other customers. Exclusive licenses may be available for rights-managed content upon payment of an additional license fee. Please contact Getty Images if you are interested in licensing content on an exclusive basis." (I am chatting with Getty Images for a license) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyl1G (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC) If this license is up to code, I will live chat with getty of getting a license deal for this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyl1G (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC) UPDATE Unfortunately, Getty will not give me a license to use the picture because the Terms of Use on Wikipedia are CC's. The person said we could contact Matt, the photographer directly and see if he will give me the license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyl1G (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Good news!

Hey, Trump's the president-elect now. I bet you didn't know that. Anyways, while some people are very polarised about what happened, there's some good news (for everyone)! This article can now be nominated for GA-status, now that it's stable, for the most part. So be bold and nominate it! :(:) Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm iffy on the "it's stable" bit. Plenty of new information is coming out. Dustin (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this has been an incredibly unstable article, with edit wars and constant, huge neutrality battles for months. I'm sure the battles will resume after the shock subsides. Plus this article will need major work in the coming months as the focus switches from being mainly a business person to being mainly a politician. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If it was "stable" it would't need extended-confirmed protection. The explosion of argument on this talk page immediately after his election shows what would have happened to the article without the extra protection. Maybe when it reaches the point where it can be reduced to semi-protection it could be evaluated for stability. It is certainly not there now. MelanieN alt (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Typo Correction - Please change ("skills as a negotiato."[46]) under 2.1.2 Trump Tower to ("skills as a negotiator."[46]) TCDTA (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Page too big?

Trouble loading page with internet connection slow sometimes.

Page too big?

Can be trimmed down some by editors?

Much thanks ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Trump has done a lot of notable things in his life. He is going to have a large article.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump page quite large and hard to load on Internet at 328 kilobytes, whereas Barack Obama page only 298 kilobytes. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd be better served to compare the article to someone who has done a similar amount of notable things in their life.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think some of the things in this article would be a good split. Maybe a separation from the business man to the politician or something. I don't know what would be the best way to handle that.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like a good start. Especially to make room for lots of massive additions that are bound to happen soon over time. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also content that is out of date, see the last paragraph in the Net worth section, which references hypothetical claims that the Trump brand has lost value due to his presidential campaign. There are way too many references too, over 600. I think that we will need to split the article into two separate ones, as there will be a lot of new content over the next four years. Trump as business man and Trump the politician seems reasonable to me, although we will need to get other editors' input on the best way to do this.--FeralOink (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a newly created page Business career of Donald Trump, which was mentioned earlier on this talk page. I believe that much of the content on that page is still duplicated here. I would like to trim more of it out of this page (further reducing the size), but don't want to do too many edits to the page in one day. I will revisit this tomorrow, and give time for additional editor comments.--FeralOink (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Polling failure - suggest add these sources for section on Polling failure

---

Polling failure

Further information: Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016

The election ended in a victory for Donald Trump despite being behind in nearly all opinion polls. After the general election polling misfiring, media analysts differed as to why the opinion prediction industry was unable to correctly forecast the result. BBC News questioned whether polling should be abandoned due to its abject failure. Forbes magazine contributor astrophysicist Ethan Siegel performed a scientific analysis and raised whether the statistical population sampled for the polling was inaccurate, and cited the cautionary adage Garbage in, garbage out. He concluded there may have been sampling bias on the part of the pollsters. Siegel compared the 2016 election to the failure of prognosticator Arthur Henning in the Dewey Defeats Truman incident from the 1948 presidential election.

---

Suggest to add above as new section for the article.

Or some, all, or any of the above.

Thank you !

References

69.50.70.9 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The polling is about the campaign, and should be on the campaign articles. But, it's not biographic and it shouldn't be added to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd paragraph at Donald_Trump#General_election already does discuss it. So clearly it does belong on this article page. Perhaps just a small addition to mention the media comparison to Dewey Defeats Truman from 1948. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL statement in article lead

The first paragraph of the lead section contains the sentence:

He was elected as the 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election on the Republican ticket, defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and will take office on January 20, 2017. (emphasis added)

Please change this to:

He was elected as the 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election on the Republican ticket, defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and is scheduled to take office on January 20, 2017.

While it is extremely likely that Trump will take office on schedule, it is not yet a mathematical certainty that nothing will happen to prevent this from occurring. --Jester 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump and Wrestling

@MelanieN: Nothing about Trump's involvement in professional wrestling in the lead section of the article. Details about other ventures like pageantry and reality TV were added. Is there any reason why the wrestling part was not included? Stanleytux (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly that is such a small part of his life it does not warrant to be included in the lead, and that is coming from a wrestling fan.  MPJ-DK  13:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump is the president-elect ?

I have a question for you as I Wikipedian Polish Wikipedia ... Why according to you Donald Trump is now president-elect? I ask, because many times I go to the enwiki and look with astonishment that give information in advance. I hope that nothing will change at the Trump ... but how do you ensure that Trump will be the president ..... and only on December 19 will be known. At my pliwiki to immediately cancel that person adds that "Donald Trump is the president-elect" TharonXX (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Previously discussed multiple times on this page. You can find some of it still on the page, the rest in recent archive pages. The short answer: Most reliable sources say he is the president-elect, so we say he is the president-elect. It is not according to us. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Donald J. Trump is the president designate and not the president-elect. Though dismissed as a technicality, legally he has not been elected president by the electoral college. That will take place on December 19, 2016. Once that happens he will be the president-elect.Setoche (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. Reliable sources call him President-elect. Obama and Hillary call him President-elect. The news media calls him that. Those are all reliable sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fascism?

With a very large number of sources calling Donald Trump a fascist or at least his positions fascist, why is this not in the article? It seems massively biased not to even mention this. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we could in principle mention how his political positions and views are assessed in a discussion of this topic, provided it is done in a nuanced way and based on good sources. There does seem to be quite a few credible sources assessing his political position in such a way. It would require some work to write a balanced/nuanced discussion of this. --Tataral (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Only if there are neutral, unbiased sources. The "fascism" label is very subjective, inflammatory, and pejorative today, so many sources that connect Trump with that political ideology might be doing so because they oppose Trump, or if this is not the case, it might be seen by many people that this article is anti-Trump if we mention this. We have to be careful in this area. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't an encyclopedia accusing the next US president of being a fascist? You sound like a complete lunatic right now. 108.54.106.8 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Photo 2

Should the infobox image be replaced with File:Donald_Trump_Rally_Dallas.jpg? Dyl1G (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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

@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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

In the introduction, it suggests that many of Trump's statements have been "controversial or false". While I believe that "controversial" is easily a fair assessment, labeling them as "false" comes down as a judgment call that crosses into POV territory. It would be more encyclopedic to say that they have been "controversial or even alleged falsehoods" or "accused of being false". Lord Sephiran, Duke of Persis (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. This appears heavily biased, especially as all candidates speak many false statements, being aware or not. I am removing it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh there appears to have been a weak consensus against this; another RfC should be made now that this is receiving more attention, i.e. now that he is President-elect. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the page curation utility doing on this page?

If you haven't noticed, the page curation tool is up on this page. This article is not newly created or unreviewed, odd as to why it is on here? Or is this just me? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Champion: Educate me. What is it, where is it, and why do we care whether it's on this page? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:See WP:Page Curation It was on the right side of the page when I posted the original comment and remains there, and it is only meant to appear on newly created or unreviewed articles, but it is not the case here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Howardform (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump was born in Queens, NY not New York, NY (He was actually born in Jamaica, NY)

The address is 85-15 wareham Rd Jamaica, NY you can search for this anywhere

Hi Howardform, the article infobox lists New York City, New York as his birthplace, which is actually correct. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Immediate back flip on main stance straight after election

With the change from Ill get rid all off illegals to ALL THE ILLEGALS CAN NOW STAY. Was it all just a trick to get the ignorant white trash vote? The ones who voted for their pay to be cut..... After all who is going to work for trumps 4$ an hour? Only the illegals.--Simon19800 (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Um... talk pages aren't general forums... We just cite stuff. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)