Page semi-protected

Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Donald Trump was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Lawsuit accusing him of raping 13-y.o. girl

Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
[ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of Randy in Boise... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The lawsuit has now been covered by Lisa Bloom of The Huffington Post [1]. The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per WP:NEWSBLOG. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy WP:BLP. WP:REDFLAG specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... Doc talk 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. Doc talk 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from Uproxx (What You Should Know About The Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump), Complex (How the Child Rape Lawsuit Against Trump Could Hurt His and Clinton’s Campaigns) and Democracy Now! (Trump Faces Lawsuit Accusing Him of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. [2] These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) is totally biased against Trump. Reliable? Funny. IHTS (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to this, by any chance? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the the International Business Times (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and Sputnik (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; Putin and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
IBTimes does not agree that it "is generally regarded as mainstream", FiredanceThroughTheNight. See IBT Media, 2015 Media Kit: "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, The Guardian is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but why not mention it with caveats? Plenty of reputable news sources have.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I did already add a mention of Johnson's lawsuit to Jeffrey Epstein's article (he was also accused in the lawsuit). It doesn't seem to have stirred up any controversy, either. One would think that because Epstein is already a convicted sex offender, the barrier for inclusion of any further accusations should be much lower. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Several hours ago, another woman (Jill Harth) also went public with sexual assault accusations against Trump. Unlike Johnson, Harth was not a minor at the time. See [9] and [10]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that's not as important as the size of his signature...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not include, unless it gets a lot more widespread coverage than it has now. Currently it is being reported by a few foreign sources, a few not-exactly-neutral domestic sources, and lawnewz.com which broke the story. This is not enough coverage to include something with BLP implications like this. Maybe it will get there, if Trump fights back strongly (a practice which tends to attract more coverage than the original accusation). But a civil suit, from more than 20 years ago, withdrawn a few weeks after it was filed? Not enough. (Even if the coverage does increase it will be hard to present this information neutrally. The incidents supposedly happened in 1993. She filed a lawsuit four years later, 1997, in the midst of a separate business-related lawsuit by her partner against Trump; and she dropped her suit a few weeks later, after the partner's suit was settled. This is according to the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I find this timing sufficiently questionable to affect her credibility.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's up to us to act as detective and assess the credibility of allegations. I also don't see the problem with "foreign" sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another update: Robert Morrow (Texas politician), the chairman of the Travis County, TX Republican Party, has publicly expressed belief in the allegations and withdrawn his support of Trump as a result, instead switching to Gary Johnson. This is already mentioned in Morrow's article. Given that Morrow was actually compared to Trump in the media following his election, this is somewhat ironic. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable and big stuff : i'll include it myself. Jombagale (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Jombagale, your addition has been reverted and revdelled. Add anything like that again and you will be blocked. --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but i may add that case, in a good manner and with sources. Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jombagale (talkcontribs) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jombagale, you can add the allegation if consensus exists. You cannot treat the alleged rape as a fact (which is what you did). I strongly advise you to make sure any contentious info you add has consensus. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see consensus here for adding a reference to this subject.CFredkin (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump signature size is inappropriately minuscule

Trump's sig size in the infobox is minuscule, and consequently looks silly or wrong. I increased it a moderate amount [11] (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should), and was reverted by user Dervorguilla with rationale "so man’s signature not substantially taller than similar woman’s signature (compare with, e.g., Hillary Clinton)" [12]. That argument is absurd (a "man versus woman" issue, huh?!). It is also comparing apples to oranges: the two articles have different template infoboxes, Clinton's signature is presented in-line by its infobox template, Trump's signature is presented by its infobox template not in-line, but solo at the infobox bottom, where there is ample more space. (Thus if you artificially equate the two, you end up with Clinton's sig size looking appropriate size for the manner her infobox presents it [a line item], and Trump's sig size looking inappropriately puny for the manner his infobox presents it [solo at infobox bottom].)

Don't minisculize Trump's sig with a faulty bogus apples-oranges logic--do what's appropriate for each case (Clinton's sig, as line item, would appear inappropriate if blown up in size; Trump's sig, assigned to the infobox bottom space, appears inappropriately minuscule when shrunk to somehow "equal" Clinton's sig size). No reader is going to notice or care or compare sig sizes between different articles, they will only notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it. (Wow, I think all of this is obvious, I'm dying of boredom stating the obvious.) IHTS (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG talk 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, JFG. (I think .5 is still small for the available space, but at least it's better.) IHTS (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
According to IHTS, "no reader is going to notice ... or compare sig sizes between different articles...". But cf. Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument", 508-09. "Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." And a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice the disparity.
No fallacy, no circular logic. (If you assume that a typical reader goes to an article for its content, they why oh why would "the disparity" occur or pop out to them, when Hillary's sig appropriately fits its available space, and Trump's sig appropriately fits its available space? I can't imagine that happening even once for typical/casual reader. If the fallacy is assuming all readers are typical/casual, I didn't make that assumption.) IHTS (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out by IHTS, however, a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice when a sig doesn't fit its assigned space. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space. (Things like that are instinctive, basic psychology/brain evolution. Noticing things out of place/ill-fitting helped our survival.) IHTS (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Apt and well-phrased, IHTS. Technically, the disruption of a regular pattern triggers a P wave with a 75 ms delay (or something along those lines).
Try scrolling down the infobox using the "Mobile sidebar preview" gadget. Do you notice any pattern disruptions that don't appear in the normal view? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thx (was unaware of that gadget, and I don't have iPhone, so looks useful). It came up okay, but I'm not sure what you're driving at. (There was less text per line re infobox text lines compared to normal view, and the sig looks the same in its space as normal view [although as mentioned above it is still too small for available space IMO].) BTW, "pattern disruption" is a different thing from what I've been talking about (filling available space), I never referred to "patterns" at all here. (Here's a bad analogy. If we are intelligent apes "walking the Earth" and "gettin' into adventures", and saw a lake with lily pads distributed on the surface, we wouldn't notice anything special about one lily pad in the center of the lake. But even if we never saw that lake before, if we came across a different lake with only a single lily pad in the center of it, it would catch attention as "odd" and even probably spur investigation of it ["What's it doing there?"]. Whereas if on the way home to our cave we came across a deep large-screen-TV-sized puddle with a single lily pad in the center, we'd just step on it or maybe pick it and eat it, without anything similarly striking us as "odd". Home Sweet Cave.) (talk)
Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads, IHTS. I Saw Eagle Flying Low over Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The artist should have done their research. Miniguns are electrically operated, requiring an external power source. Only in the movies can you walk around with one of those. They should have given him an M60 instead. For realism. Doc talk 07:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The lily pads weren't "precious", only objects in an analogy. (They might be nutritious however, if the apes were omnivores.) The solution to compromise w/ you is really Randy-inappropriate; the same as if someone told me I can't fill up the gas tank in my Toyota, 'cause it has more capacity than a woman's Volkswagon at the other pump.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You're right in part, IHTS. My apologies for getting silly with the second-wave feminist nonsense (which I thoroughly rebut at Feminism#Jurisprudence). However, the solution was not technically a "compromise" between two editors - for you'd proven that my original claim was in error.
The question then became, what image size does fit best? Should we focus on the horizontal dimension or the vertical dimension?
Only if the vertical is important could an argument be made that current size (as set by JFG) is adequate. I could make a reasonable claim that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit, rather than a subjective compromise between two editors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, I think comparing to "similar articles" is off-point - the space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a retangular box containing this sig, width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
What if the lilypad was a Lotus, and it was driven by a woman?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Wielding a minigun plugged into the lighter socket... --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Point taken, IHTS. But if we apply the "space available" metric alone, Li Bai's signature would need to be nearly five times taller than María del Carmen González-Valerio's.
Perhaps we should compare to similar articles with similar signature-character counts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no sigs at either article. (Li Bia img is of an artwork, not a sig.) I recommend that a problem exist, before you attempt to find solution. And you seem permanently stuck on making comparisons. (If you crop a photo, you'll go wrong by chasing other similar photos to compare. Deal w/ what is in front of you.) IHTS (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Will do, IHTS. You mentioned in particular, "I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space." With my Firefox/PC browser magnification set at 100%, the unused space around the signature looks about the same as the average unused space around the other Infobox elements.
But to me as a reader, the unused space on a generic HTML document is of trifling importance, because I think of it as varying with device, platform, and magnification. What I notice instead here is the signature height. I see it as overly tall, because it draws my attention away from the data in the preceding elements (which are more helpful to me personally and, most likely, to the average WP reader). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're still *comparing*! Except now, instead of to other similar articles, you're comparing white space surrounding the sig to white space surrounding the infobox line items. It's still an apples-to-oranges compare; the elements are different in kind and available space. Regarding platforms, I'm assuming the relative amount of white space to entire available space remains the same between platforms. Regarding sig size detracting your attention from the infobox line items, that's a non-starter, since the sig is an entirely different construct than the line items (it's a weird or wild artistic shape/construct), that alone will guarantee drawing attention differently from the uniform text line items, regardless what vertical size the sig assumes - it will *always* stand out because it is totally unlike the other items). p.s. This has become tedious. I won't be responding further unless other editors have problems too, other than you. IHTS (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I've adjusted the sig size to more appropriately fill the available space (the approx long-standing size until this edit containing rationale "compare with Hillary Clinton's signature: male competitor's signature taller than female's, by 1.5:1" already discussed above). There is no difference between the judgment involved, from cropping a photo: Each person's sig is like their own little "work of art"; the available space in this infobox is like the "canvas" for said work. Dervorguilla, you seem to be the only editor generating ongoing objections to this. As with the gender-based argument, I don't see all your "comparison" arguments making much sense, or refuting what I've described & explained. Your displeasure has been based on considerations of things outside of the thing (thing + its space) itself. That is not a valid way to look at presenting/displaying a person's sig. A person's sig is not "listed information". It is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona. IHTS (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
"A person's sig ... is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona." Except that it isn't, IHTS. Graphology -- the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting -- purports to be able to evaluate personality characteristics but is generally considered a pseudoscience. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Give me a break. It's the person's individual expression (unique to themselves). That's why I wrote "expression of their persona". And that's why a sig is used as identity confirmation for a person, just like a thumbprint is. It's their individual identification "stamp". And who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me. (Nitpick some more??? I do think your objective now is to continue this thread without end, grind me down. This thread should have been 1/4 its size, at most. Plus you changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD, not me.) IHTS (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience, that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue for what is essentially an artwork file (subject's unique signature), borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption. With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ("Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads"), no wonder I've lost my patience with you. IHTS (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
To address your most telling concerns here, IHTS:
...You changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD...
Good point about the "long-standing" sig size. Yes, it's been nearly seven years since sysop Connormah added the image, at upright=0.7. And it stayed that size till I meddled with it.
But the binding policy here (as cited at BRD) is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516, explaining, "I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns".
...Who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me.
I may indeed have misunderstood the point of your argument that the signature "is more like an expression of the subject's personality..." The language about "evaluating personality" is found at Graphology: "the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting [for the purpose of] evaluating personality characteristics [or the like]." (Thence also my claim that such analysis "is generally considered a pseudoscience".)
Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience [or] that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, [and] picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue ... borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption.
No; rather, you and I have been giving each other some very good reasons for seeing one sig size as better than another. And I feel that I've come to understand your reasons for disagreeing with me (and with JFG).
With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ... no wonder I've lost my patience with you.
I also feel that I've been complying with WP:INDCRIT and that you (easily) understood my responses to your comments.
Here are 3 diffs that illustrate why I have trouble believing your claim that I've caused you to lose patience by linking to the "mocking" artwork and so forth.
1. Your own apparently mocking reply ("No, the size of your head.") to Jack Upland's mocking reply to JFG's comment.
2. Your apparently light-hearted reply ("Depends of course how good-looking she is.") to my second light-hearted comment that mentions the artwork.
3. Your unacknowledged removal of your two replies. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Could we solve all this by getting Donald to write with a crayon?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Your off-topic graphic mocked the BLP subject, and your associated comment mocked me as editor. I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor, as yours were. And I listed reasons beyond your off-topic mocking posts for losing patience with you. (You seem to dwell on the trivial and off-topic. Duh I wonder why.) ¶ A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px), and your rationale for shrinking the size and reverting me based on sexual equality was so absurd: "male competitor's signature taller than female's". You don't have any consensus to reduce the long-standing sig size. And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring on that basis. No doubt you will continue your BS discussion techniques and out-of-policy reverting, however. You seem pleased to extend this thread and reverting until 6,000 years.) IHTS (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You're making the claim that the off-topic posts you deleted weren't mocking other editors, IHTS.
I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor...
Yet your "off-topic post" of 10 July 2016 seems to be personally mocking Jack Upland:
I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the size of your head. IHTS 07:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
And contrary to WP:REDACT, you've neglected to indicate that two days later you deleted the post and also a second post, to which I'd already replied. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic, and wrong. (Upland's post was disruptive snark and deserved a putdown. Your mocking of me was unprompted & undeserved. Your mocking of Trump also did/does not belong here.) I'm having trouble finding anything substantive contributed by you in this thread. Yet you will probably continue extending it. IHTS (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • My edit summary for reducing the sig size was,That sig was too big. Now we need someone who knows how to move the label, "Signature," over to the left of the infobox. This should look like the sig in Hillary Clinton's infobox. IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page. My remark that it should look like Clinton's meant it should look balanced in relation to the rest of the infobox like hers does.
  • I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page.
  • CONCRETE SUGGESTION for improvement of article and end of debate: change the template so the space for the sig is smaller.
  • Compare (yes, compare!) how Trump's sig is more conspicuous on the page that John Hancock's. Doesn't look right; doesn't make sense; can't find precedent or reason to make it so conspicuous. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. (The two infobox templates are different and provide different available spaces.) Whether that's a problem or not, I doubt this is the proper venue to discuss it. Oh and I did not "restore the larger signature"; the size was blown up to incredible size due to markup error, I simply corrected my earlier markup error. IHTS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
YoPienso's claim seems legitimate, IHTS. He's saying that your edit "restores the larger signature". Most people here would likely understand "larger" as meaning the larger of the two things that were the subjects of the preceding discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No, go look at my diffs at the WP:EWN incident you opened. (Actually click on them, and look at the article effects.) And p.s., there is obviously a disconnect between the template:Infobox person doc, and the actual default siz size which has been long-lasting in this article, and against which you've never presented a single cogent argument why something is wrong with. IHTS (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I reviewed the relevant diffs before I made the report, IHTS. And I think YoPienso's comment speaks for itself. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent consensus

Compilation of most relevant passages from discussion above

Trump's sig size [80px] in the infobox is minuscule... I increased it a moderate amount [13] [to 130px] (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should)...
...[Readers] will ... notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it... IHTS 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed the size to a middle ground [110px] to accommodate both editors' concerns.... — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, JFG. (I think .5 [110px] is still small for the available space, but at least it's better [than 80px].) IHTS 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
... I could make a reasonable claim that that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit... --Dervorguilla 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
...The space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a rectangular box ... width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I've adjusted the sig size [from 110px to 170px] to more appropriately fill the available space... IHTS 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
...The binding policy here ... is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516...
...A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px)... And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring [from 110px] on that basis...) IHTS 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
*My edit summary for reducing the sig size [to 110px] was, That sig was too big... IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page...
*I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page... YoPienso 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
...(The two infobox templates [Infobox person & Infobox officeholder] ... provide different available spaces.)... IHTS 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Compilation of most relevant passages from a Comments section elsewhere

User Yopienso's edit [from 220px to 110px] was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more. User JFG did not offer any opinion on signature size, he/she only took the median between an inappropriately minuscule size [80px] ... and the long-standing template:Infobox person default sig size [150px]... IHTS 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment – ...I do feel that the "0.5" [110px] signature size looks appropriate given this infobox format and the shape of this particular signature... JFG talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

___

JFG, Dervorguilla, and YoPienso currently appear to support the 110px compromise signature size of 10 July 2016 (and oppose an 80px, 130px, or 150px size).

IHTS currently appears to support an 150px size (and oppose an 80px, 110px, or 130px size).

Apparent consensus size (current): 110px. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your "apparent consensus" is a fake and fabricated one. Your shrinking preference was first based on an absurd "gender equality" argument, which you have now switched to "My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox", when I've made it clear numerous times the available space provided by the infobox for signature is a different and larger space than other infobox items. (So apples-and-oranges comparison, invalidating your preference for "compromising". JFG offered no rationale for reducing the sig size from the long-standing sig size other than "to compromise", and I explained how compromise with a size with invalid "gender equality" reduction rationale makes no sense. He/she only changed their rationale after personally insulting me then getting flak back for it. Yopienso corrected my markup error, then offered thoughts about the differences between the different infobox templates as source of different available signature sizes, and suggested a discussion about template modification for all WP articles that belongs elsewhere. His is a different discussion input than you are attempting to distort here for your own POV purpose to shrink the Donald Trump signature without cause. There is nothing wrong with the current long-standing default signature size, and no editor (NO EDITOR!) has given any reason why the current size is bad or wrong or inappropriate, other than your apples-and-oranges invalid comparison reason. IHTS (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the template used on Barack Obama's page. It's the one I'm most familiar with and keeps the signature proportionate to the rest of the infobox. My reason for thinking the current size is bad or wrong or inappropriate is precisely that: the size of the signature is disproportionate to the rest of the infobox. I was unaware we have so many different infobox templates for people, probably since I don't pay a lot of attention to the BLPs of celebrities, being more interested in politicians. YoPienso (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"the template used on Barack Obama's page [...] keeps the signature proportionate to the rest of the infobox". And the template used on Trump's page doesn't. I agree. As already mentioned, the different templates provide different available spaces for sig, and the response of shrinking the long-standing default size to artificially "equalize" sig sizes when a different available space exists, is artificial and equivalent to forcing square peg in round hole. Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Probably the current template should stand unless Trump becomes the POTUS, in which case we would swap it out for the template used for other PsOTUS. YoPienso (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Somehow during all this drama, the signature lost its extra markup and came to be autosized by the template. I think that's fine and all editors involved should drop the stick and enjoy the sunshine. — JFG talk 22:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
You haven't been paying attention. I restored the long-standing markup here, which was overridden here, which override was reverted here. All was included in discussion. p.s. Of course it looks fine, and thx for that. Only user Dervorguilla has been opposing, w/o cause. IHTS (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, this happened five days after my only edit, I was indeed not following what happened to the page at that point. Glad this looks settled now. — JFG talk 19:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. IHTS (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation in lede

This edit restored content which is no longer accurate (and replaced content which is accurate). The body of the article currently states:

Trump later modified his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies.[1] Trump has said that the ban would be lifted once the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.[2]

Also, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the content should NOT have been restored unless/until there was consensus to do so in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
  2. ^ Ryan Teague Beckwith (2016-06-13). "Read Donald Trump's Speech on the Orlando Shooting". Time.com. Retrieved 2016-07-12. 
Huh? In what POSSIBLE sense is this a BLP violation? Let's not throw that accusation around unless it has some basis in reality. As for the possible wording, we have two choices at the moment: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (the current wording) and "a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists."(the previous and your preferred wording). I don't see any way that we can gloss over his frequently repeated insistence on banning Muslims, even if he did later modify it by saying "from terrorist countries". (In fact when he first said it he even said the ban would apply to American citizens who were Muslim, although he quickly retracted that.) And his ban was never just on "immigration", it was on entering the country at all - as tourists, as foreign dignitaries, students, whatever. The "terrorist countries" comment in June did not revoke the Muslim ban, it expanded on it, as per the NPR source: "Responding to the Orlando shootings in a New Hampshire speech Monday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the appearance to expand on his previous call to temporarily ban all Muslims from immigrating to the United States." The fact that he specified "from terrorist countries" did not in any way erase his previous and never-retracted ban on "Muslims". The whole history - ban and expansion - is spelled out in the text. If you think the modification is so important it has to go in the lede, how about something like this: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Melanie basically covers it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That sentence in the lede begins with "His platform includes...." It's intended to reflect his current positions. The following reliable sources all indicate that he changed his stance from temporarily banning Muslims to temporarily banning people from countries with a history of terrorist activity:


Trump Shifts Muslim Ban to Focus on Only 'Terrorist' Nations (ABC News)

Donald Trump's shifting positions on Muslim ban (CNN)

Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal? (CSM

Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban? (CBS News)

Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism' (The Hill)CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the edit I referenced is a BLP violation because WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE indicates that:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

This was clearly not adhered to in this case.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Every one of those citations makes it clear that 1) he is still talking about MUSLIMS, particularly those from terrorist countries - not Christians or Jews or atheists from those countries, just Muslims; and 2) he has not withdrawn his proposed ban on all Muslims; the closest he has come was a comment that a Scottish Muslim "wouldn't bother me". His spokespeople, trying to explain what he said, were all over the map, ranging from "it's about Muslims from countries that support terrorism" to "nothing has changed." Trump himself, as recently as June 25, "declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims."[14] So there's really no evidence that he has withdrawn his repeated call for a "shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." At most, he recently said that his ban is not ironclad and that people coming from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted". So as I proposed above, we could say "particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism". But there is no way we can say or imply that he has withdrawn his platform to ban Muslims from entering the country. The sources, and Trump himself, simply do not support that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN and Volunteer Marek on this point. The lead is a summary — it is not meant to reflect ever single variation in phrasing. As VM notes, Trump has never retracted his previous proposed "ban on Muslims." Neutralitytalk 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Excerpts from sources provided above:

Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign. In interviews at his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, Trump went further, saying that the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." - ABC News (6/25/16)

Trump also indicated on Saturday that his ban is not ironclad and declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims.

Instead, Trump emphasized that Muslims from states with heavy terrorist activity would be "very strongly" vetted and suggested that the U.S. would more closely scrutinize all individuals seeking to enter the country. He also told the Daily Mail that individuals from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted" but could ultimately be allowed entry into the country. "People coming from the terror states -- and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states -- we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump told CNN after touring his golf course here. Trump also focused on the need to ban individuals from "terrorist countries" in an interview later Saturday with Bloomberg Politics.

"I want terrorists out. I want people that have bad thoughts out. I would limit specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are," Trump said, again not specifying which countries would be included. - CNN (6/25/16)

The presumptive Republican nominee would now ban Muslims only from “terror” countries, he told the Daily Mail on the 18th hole of his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, while he urged several golfers to play through the hole. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted," he said, according to NBC News. - CSM (6/26/16)

When CBS News asked Trump, on a tour of his Aberdeen golf course, whether he would allow Muslims from Scotland or Great Britain into the U.S., Trump shook his head.

That "wouldn't bother me," the billionaire responded.

It seemed to be a softening of Trump's initial call, made in December, for a "total and complete shutdown" of all Muslims attempting to step foot on U.S. soil. - CBS (6/25/16)

Trump told reporters that it "wouldn't bother" him if a Muslim immigrated to the U.S. from a country like Scotland.


Then, in an interview with the DailyMail.com, he seemed to expand on a shift away from focusing on religion toward a country-specific policy. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee seemed to say that he may allow Muslim immigrants from certain "terror countries" after applying extra scrutiny.

"I don't want people coming in — I don't want people coming in from certain countries," Trump told the Daily Mail. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted.

"People coming from the terror states — and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states — we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump later told CNN. - The Hill (6/25/16)

It's pretty clear that Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer. So to say that in the lead to his bio is inaccurate. Instead I think we could say something like:

His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (later changed to people from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your quotes are the exact same ones I was referring to, when I said he has not retracted his proposal to ban all Muslims, and that his proposal to ban "people" from terrorist countries refers to Muslims from those countries (as verified by his spokesperson). And his proposal was not later "changed", it was maybe "refocused". I have deleted the reference to non-interventionist from the sentence, per talk below. I think we are close to agreement. How about something like:

His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

Personally I prefer the wording I proposed above - "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists" - over the version with the parentheses, but I won't insist on it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. It may be "pretty clear" to you that "Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer" - but it was not clear to the authors of these references (note the headlines "Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal?"and "Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban?"), or to Trump's spokespeople, or even to Trump himself, who refused to reply to a direct question on that subject - as I pointed out above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
User:MelanieN OK. It looks like your proposal in talkquotes above is as close as we're going to get to a reasonable outcome. Let's do it.CFredkin (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I've compiled the most relevant passages from the four most mainstream English-language news media, as measured by circulation.
1. BBC News: 'Orlando justifies my Muslim ban', says Trump (June 14, 2016).
Here are five key lines from his speech – and what they could mean.
[1.] "... I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."
... Trump provided some additional details about the temporary Muslim ban that he proposed ... in December. First of all, it may not be a Muslim ban at this point. In his speech he simply referred to closing the borders to nations that "have a history of terrorism" against the US and its allies...
2. AP: In his words: Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban (June 28, 2016).
June 24–25, 2016: ... At one point Trump tells reporters that he'd be fine with Muslims from Scotland or the U.K. coming to the U.S.  Trump later takes to Twitter to offer a clarification: "We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place."
3. Reuters: After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims (June 14, 2016).
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee ... propos[ed] that the United States suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism."
4. WSJ: Donald Trump back-pedals on banning Muslims from U.S. (June 28, 2016).
Donald Trump appears to be backing away from one of his ... proposals—banning Muslims from entering the U.S.... Since ... May ... he has gradually moved away from a blanket religious ban and toward a more nuanced policy targeting countries with a record of terrorism.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Dervorguilla, are you OK with the wording in the last set of talk-quotes above? --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
None of the above, MelanieN! According to BBC News and other top-ranked authorities, Trump is currently indicating he would not ban persons based on religion. Rather, he's openly saying he would ban persons based on national origin.
Muslims from England or Scotland: OK. Persons of any claimed religion from Syria: not OK.
In his platform, Trump is unmistakably advocating national-origin discrimination.
Many readers are intensely interested in this controversy -- including Muslims living in England! We owe them the best available information as judged by its authority, accuracy/verifiability, and currency. (MLA Handbook.) Not as judged by our own arguments (however logical) that Trump's statement is confusing or misleading.
The four authorities cited above do not support the information that "his platform includes ... a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims". Indeed, they would seem more to contradict it. For this reason, I'm removing the information forthwith.
That "Trump has never retracted his previous proposed 'ban on Muslims'" is almost a truism; as a matter of principle, Trump doesn't retract anything he's previously proposed! Nor do most other political figures (e.g., Bill Clinton or George Bush). It would amount to acknowledging they made a mistake.
Nor does Trump in particular feel obligated to address any embarrassing question in a straightforward manner -- or at all.
Although many publications do dwell on such matters, the most authoritative ones (BBC, WSJ, and the like) try to avoid them as being, shall we say, comparatively trifling (or perhaps even a bit juvenile for a seasoned journalist to report on at any great length?). What really matters is, what is the candidate saying in his most authoritative (i.e., most fully amended) platform. Not, what did he say last year.
Look at it this way: Has any high-quality source proposed that Trump was more candid or truthful last year than he is this year?
(Nonetheless, I think we were wise to spend some time investigating this matter.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so. You need CONSENSUS to act on disputed material, not just your own conviction that you are right. CFredkin and I had reached consensus on a wording that included both "Muslims" and "from terrorist countries." Volunteer Marek and Neutrality had earlier agreed with me that "Muslim" should be included. That leaves just you, one against four, claiming that just because he doesn't repeat "Muslim" in every statement he makes, that somehow means that he has dropped religion in favor of national origin (which not even his own people believe; in fact one of them clarified that Trump means MUSLIMS from terror countries). Trump's Muslim ban (including modifications) is his second-most-notable position (after "build the wall"), and it is explained in a full paragraph in the text. IMO we would be wrong to just ignore it in the lede. I think the agreed-upon statement above should be put into the article but I will wait for a little more input from others - because I respect consensus, and so must you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I see that someone has already restored the phrase; that makes five to one in favor of including it. They restored the existing version; I will replace it with the more consensus-supported version above. Then we should leave it alone until consensus is reached here to do something else. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. In the sources you quoted above: while you were cherry-picking quotes, did you not notice the headlines? Only the WSJ even implies that he might be backpedaling on his Muslim ban. The others say "Orlando justifies my Muslim ban", "Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban", and "Trump hardens stance on Muslims". --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN: You wrote, "Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so." Please spell out the discretionary sanction that I violated. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I picked the most relevant quotes. I gave the electronic headline for each article. The headline is not a static source: it's written by editors and varies by edition. And the electronic headline is most often unrelated to the original print headline (the more authoritative 'source'). But no quality newspaper republishes a passage from another newspaper's headline; it reprints relevant passages from the story itself, under its own headline. Nor does any scholarly work ever cite a headline as an authority for a claim.
5. N.Y. Times: How Donald Trump keeps changing his mind on abortion, torture and banning Muslims (June 29, 2016).
On June 13, Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.” But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations “tied to Islamic terror.” Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...”
--Dervorguilla (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the author does not write the headline and that it can change. But it reflects what somebody reading and evaluating that article thought the article said. Most of them thought it was still about the "Muslim ban". You seem to be the only one who thinks one quote of his amounted to a repeal of the religious test in favor of a national test. Most, including Trump's own staff, thought it was a modification of the Muslim ban. Here is how the AP tried to analyze his current position: basically, nobody knows what he thinks or what he is calling for. And I loved this: "Asked to clarify whether Trump still supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. as originally proposed, a ban of immigration from countries associated with terrorism, as he said in his post-Orlando speech, or strong vetting of people coming into the country from such nations, as he said this past weekend in Scotland, (spokeswoman) Hicks said: "Mr. Trump stated a position consistent with his speech two weeks ago." "He has been very clear," she added in an email Monday. It's the press, she said, that has "tried to cause confusion."" Yeah, right. Clear as mud, as the saying goes. Apparently his staff can weasel-talk almost as well as he can. But our job as encyclopedists is to try to convey a true sense of the situation, as reported by Reliable Sources. I think the phrase we now have in the lede, and the paragraph in the text, do a pretty good job of doing that. If Trump should eventually make a clear statement of his position - maybe in his acceptance speech? - we should certainly use that. But in the meantime we have to go with what we have. BTW if you look at his ACTUAL platform, spelled out on his web page, he goes into great specific detail about the Wall and about Mexico paying for it. But there is nothing in writing about Muslims that I could find. In fact he has never said anything definite or in writing about his Muslim ban, except for the pledge he used to repeat at every rally, reading it from a card: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." I believe he doesn't do that any more, but he hasn't replaced it with any similarly clear statement. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you and think last article in NYT quoted by Dervorguilla [15] is pretty much instructive. It shows some "common denominators" in all his seemingly contradictory statements. He certainly has some ideas, and here they are: (a) ban Muslims one way or another, (b) ban abortion, (c) take relatives of potential terrorists as hostages (well, that is exactly what Ramzan Kadyrov does). My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for interpreting the article, My very best wishes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN: In your reply to my comment you say, "Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so." Please educate me about the particular Sanctions section I violated. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I felt that you violated the spirit of the sanctions - which include not making changes to the article while the issue is under discussion, waiting for consensus instead of acting on your own belief, and avoiding any kind of edit warring. But based on the wording placed on this article by an administrator - "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article" - the DS here apply only to RESTORING controversial material, not to removing it. So in a strict sense you did not violate the DS as stated at this article, and I apologize for saying you did. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the apology, MelanieN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Term 'terrorist countries'

In the context of international terrorism, a term such as "terrorist countries" should be understood as meaning countries "where the perpetrators [of such terrorism] operate or seek refuge." See 18 U.S.C. § 2331. And yet Somedifferentstuff's edit summary shows he (quite reasonably!) believes that "terrorist countries" isn't an encyclopedic term. So: We've established that using the term makes the text less accessible to the average editor -- who (like me) would need to consult a legal or business dictionary to find out what the term means in Standard English.

As pointed out in MOS:INTRO § Provide an accessible overview, it's very important that the text in the lead be accessible. Here, for example, we could (1) say what the term 'terrorist countries' means or (2) substitute more accessible language. Based on the terminology used in top-ranked sources (AP, Reuters, and the like), we can use language such as '...areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe, or their allies...'

Does anyone here believe that the average reader wouldn't readily understand what any of those terms means in Standard English? ('Areas of the world', 'proven history', 'terrorism against the U.S.', or 'their allies'?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't make up our own definition. But we can use the definition Trump gave: "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." We do in fact use that phrase in the body of the text. And we can use the shorthand he and his staffers use, "terrorist countries" (in quotation marks), which fits better in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Just passing by, I for one did not know of "terrorist countries" technical meaning. I assumed it was just a term made up by media. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 02:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think he means these countries. That's official. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That could be one definition, but it's not Trump's definition. (Would he accept anything "official" from the Obama administration?) His definition is much broader and much less specific: "areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies". I think it's pretty clear that he, and he alone, gets to decide what countries those are. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"...He, and he alone, gets to decide what countries those are." Yes -- much as presidents Carter, Reagan, and Clinton got to designate countries as "state sponsors of terrorism" (in aggregate, 5 countries: 3 Muslim, 2 non-Muslim), and much as President Obama gets to (currently, 3 countries: Syria, Sudan, and Iran).
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy & Human Rights, State Sponsors of Terrorism. --Dervorguilla (talk)06:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In the 60 Minutes interview, Trump said "[from terrorist] territories", not "countries". And it was clear "territories" meant to replace "Muslims", so, the lead is now misrepresentative of his most recent proposal. (Is the lead intending to give a history of his changing proposals? That would be absurd.) IHTS (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That was not at all "clear", as you can see from the extensive discussion above about this. Some of his spokespeople, trying to clarify what he meant, said "the ban would apply to Muslims from terrorist countries" and "nothing has changed". Both he and his spokespeople have repeatedly refused to clarify, even when asked directly, if this "areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism" standard replaces his Muslim ban, or narrows it, or applies to people of all religions from such areas, or what. Since he hasn't withdrawn the ban, and hasn't specified how it relates to the "terrorist areas of the world" standard, I think we have to continue to include the (possibly modified) Muslim ban in the lede. The history of the changing proposals is expounded in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In the interview, Trump insisted that word "territories" be used to describe, to replace other description that others object to. (You seem to be ignoring that. It has to be pertinent.) IHTS (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the 60 minutes interview you are talking about? I've been quoting his June 13 statement after the Orlando shootings ("I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies") Has he said something more definitive since then? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, OK, you're talking about his joint interview last Sunday with Mike Pence. Here is the exchange that you think makes it clear that territories was meant to replace Muslims:

Lesley Stahl: (to Pence) --in December you tweeted, and I quote you, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."
Donald Trump: So you call it territories. OK? We're gonna do territories. We're gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are. Hillary Clinton wants 550 percent more people to come in than Obama—
Lesley Stahl: So you—
Donald Trump: --who doesn't know what he's—
Lesley Stahl: --so you're changing—
Donald Trump: --so we're going to—
Lesley Stahl: --your position.
Donald Trump: --no, I-- call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?
Lesley Stahl: So not Muslims?
Donald Trump: You know-- the Constitution -- there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I'll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we're not gonna allow the people to come into our country. And we're gonna have a thing called "Extreme vetting." And if people wanna come in, there's gonna be extreme vetting. We're gonna have extreme vetting. They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are.

So he sort of says, several times, that he prefers to talk about territories (or "call it whatever you want"). As for whether he means Muslims, notice that she asks him twice he is talking about Muslims or not, and he evades the question both times. When she asks "so you're changing your position?" he says "No, I - call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?" And when she asks "So not Muslims?" he replies with word salad. If you can find a "clear" statement of policy in this, then you have a very good imagination. In fact this is typical Trump, virtually impossible to parse into an actual statement of policy. But if you see a way to incorporate this recent interview into the lede, please show me your suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's what the lede currently says: "His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on persons from "terrorist countries") until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." He now says "territories" without defining what characterizes those territories; and he also talks about "territories and terror states and terror nations". How would you modify the sentence to get this new wording in? "(which he later said would focus on persons from "terror states")"? "(which he later said would focus on persons from territories)"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
From the lede: "His platform includes ... a proposal ... (which he later said...)." But compare CMOS ("Grammar"): "The present tense primarily denotes acts ... or states that occur in the present... The past tense denotes an act ... or state that occurred or existed at some explicit or implicit point in the past."
Both the grammar and the meaning are in error, MelanieN.
Also, there is no need for you to attack IHTS's credibility. Both IHTS and I did (independently) find a clear statement of Trump's policy here; and I for one have a very poor "imagination". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The tense is only wrong if he has actually abandoned his "ban Muslims" proposal. Which he has persistently refused to do. But let's stick to what should go in the article. Please state, in a phrase or sentence, what you think should go in the lead on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Content must be agreed in discussion before exact text can be. It's clear he's suggesting to temporarily ban immigrants from certain "terrotories", until "extreme vetting" can screen out "radical Muslim [terrorists]". Plus he previously denied it is a "proposal", and it isn't on his campaign website under "Positions", so "idea" or "suggestion" is a better descriptor. IHTS (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The reason I challenged Dervorguilla to come up with a proposed wording (I almost added "good luck") is that it is almost impossible to make sense out of his latest interview, and impossible to tell whether he has renounced his earlier "Muslim ban" or simply stopped talking about it. He has actually made two definitive, formal statements on this subject that he has put in writing and repeated many times: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." (December) and "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." (May) He also said, in a May interview, that a Muslim ban "hasn't been called for yet" and was "only a suggestion." And now, in July, he offered an incomprehensible ramble about undefined "territories". The two written statements are his own clear words and IMO should be respected as such, particularly over trying to figure out what he means by parsing partial sentences in interviews. So I'll ask you too: please, tell me what you make of this - and what you think we should say. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Already replied above what is clearly the content. If you disallow Trump to modify his suggestion by keeping forefront what he said in the past, then ending up puzzled is no surprise. IHTS (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN: Trump is known for changing his position one or more times in a single spoken sentence! So I personally would use (or believe) only a statement he's made in writing (or under oath).
Here's his plan for immigration reform, which he wrote down nearly a year ago and hasn't changed since:
"We need to stop giving legal immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm. From the 9/11 hijackers [of Saudi Arabia], to the Boston Bombers [of Kalmykia], and many others, our immigration system is being used to attack us... Here are some additional specific policy proposals for long-term reform: [No. 1.] Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses."[1]
So, here's how I would modify the sentence, to bring it into accord with the candidate's historic written (not spoken) platform:
"His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, reform U.S.–China trade, and augment standards for the admission of travelers and asylum-seekers from designated areas (which may include Saudi Arabia, Kalmykia, or Syria, for example)[1]."
  1. ^ a b Donald J Trump for President (2015). "Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again" (PDF). DonaldJTrump.com. Archived from the original on 2015-08-16. 
But the parenthetical may need some rewording, to meet WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:STICKTOSOURCE.
Note that the clause is supported by the inline citation, per WP:LEADCITE. "Statements about living persons that are likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Some authoritative data & definitions

America's biggest ally is Muslim. (And the ally's biggest city is the biggest city in Europe.) And there's a proven history of terrorism "against" it. Terrorism by, in particular, non-Muslim groups.
America's newest ally is Muslim too. (And it's also in Europe.)
NATO, Member Countries. Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy & Human Rights, Foreign Terrorist Organizations; State Sponsors of Terrorism.

"Territory. A geographical area included within a particular government's jurisdiction"; "occupied territory. Territory that is under the effective control and authority of a belligerent armed force".
Black's Law Dictionary.
To illustrate: Think about an area that's within the jurisdiction of the Government of South Sudan but under the effective control of the janjaweed force supported by the Government of (north) Sudan. It would be part of a terrorist "territory" or "area" but not a terrorist "country". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla - Thanks for trying to come up with some actual wording. First of all, I don't agree with your changing "opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP" - something he has been completely consistent on and repeats in every speech - to "reform U.S.–China trade" - a milquetoast, not-very-notable proposal. So let's either leave that phrase alone or start a separate discussion on it.
On your proposed new immigration wording - "augment standards for the admission of travelers and asylum-seekers from designated areas (which may include Saudi Arabia, Kalmykia, or Syria, for example)" - I doubt if even Trump would recognize that as his position. It's certainly not wording that has been widely publicized or used by him in speeches. It's basically boilerplate from a position paper, probably written by staff. The recent wording that he has used, both in writing and in speeches, and has been widely publicized is "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies".
IHTS - One of the disagreements between us here is whether we should include the Muslim ban as part of his "platform," since he hasn't mentioned it recently and some people think it has been replaced by more recent wording. And he later said it was "just a suggestion". I think those are reasonable points. I do think we need to retain the Muslim ban in the lede since it was so widely publicized and controversial (I'd like to add the "Wall", too, but that's another discussion for another day), but let's not make it part of his "platform". How about two sentences, something like this: His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration and opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. In December 2015 he suggested a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States; in May 2016 he said he would accept Muslim visitors from friendly countries but suspend immigration from areas or territories of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies," until the U.S. has developed better vetting methods to screen out potential terrorists. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I think timestamps are too detailed for lede. And picking/choosing only a couple of the major platform positions is ... according to whom? Anyway here's my input for suggested lede text: His platform includes "real" immigration reform, renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of Veterans' Care, and tax reform. He has suggested a temporary ban on immigration to the United States (initially by all foreign Muslims, except Muslim visitors from friendly countries, then later) from "territories" having "a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies" until better methods of vetting can be developed for screening out potential terrorists. Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory. Ok, IHTS (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Support, with a friendly amendment to strike out the parenthetical. See rev 731032133 by ThiefOfBagdad (rm scrapped proposal, discussed in body). Note, however, that (per WP:LEADCITE) any statement about Trump that's likely to get challenged must have an inline citation everywhere it's mentioned in the lead. So it looks like we may have some work to do. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree w/ striking the parenthetical (the lede is no place for chronicling the evolution of a suggestion). (I anticipated MelanieN would object if "Muslim" were dropped.) IHTS (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
"I doubt if even Trump would recognize that as his position." No consensus, MelanieN. The relevant part of the main clause in the sentence closely paraphrases the corresponding text in one of Trump's seven official position papers. And Trump is said to be perhaps overly concerned with control over the details of any document that may have legal consequences -- for instance, a formally adopted platform position paper. (Once approved, the position becomes official and the paper can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.) Compare with Trump's speeches, which are so self-contradictory in important parts that no reasonable person could claim to have believed and been (significantly) misled by anything he says in them.
Looks like Reuters just scooped me on this analysis! "Trump Leaves Some on Wall Street Wary and Confused." 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
"It's basically boilerplate from a position paper, probably written by staff." Apparent consensus. It's basically wording from one of the seven Donald J Trump Position papers written by Donald J Trump for President campaign staff on the candidate's behalf, adopted by the candidate's campaign (around August 16, 2015), and published on the candidate's campaign site. Consequently, it's basically wording from his official campaign platform.
"The recent wording that he has used, both in writing and in speeches, and has been widely publicized is 'suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies'."
Yes; and because it's been so widely publicized, there ought to be at least one source, somewhere, that can be given to verify that it's been adopted as part of his campaign platform. If not, it has to get tagged and towed, per WP:V ("Any material challenged must be supported by inline citations") and WP:LEADCITE ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead").
Meanwhile, here's some text that more closely approximates the language in the relevant position paper:
"His platform includes measures to ... increase [or, augment] standards for the admission of refugees, asylum-seekers, and other noncitizens from designated areas."
Here "noncitizen" = anyone who's required to get a visa for admission. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would mostly support IHTS's proposed wording. If I could tweak and simplify the Muslim line, how about "Early in the campaign he suggested a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States; he later modified his proposal to one which would exclude immigrants from territories having "a proven history of ..." That leaves open the disputed question of whether the "terror countries" proposal replaces the "Muslim" ban or leaves it in place in a more restricted form. One other possible friendly amendment: I really think " "real" immigration reform" should say " "real" immigration reform including a proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border". That really is his best-known and most consistent platform, and it can be cited to any of his speeches or directly to his website. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    You (MelanieN & Dervorguilla) still aren't together re whether "Muslim ban" s/b mentioned in lede. (If that history is included, it lengthens the text, and I don't think a parenthetical can be avoided.) Anyway here's updated suggested text (BTW in Trump's RNC speech he said "nations" instead of "territories") ... Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of Veterans' Care, and tax reform. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe, or allies until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.) Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory. Ok, IHTS (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We do indeed have a nontrivial WP:BALASPS problem here. (Strive to treat each aspect of the subject with a weight appropriate to its weight in the body of reliable sources on the subject.)
As it happens, I came across a preeminently reliable source that could (randomly) be taken as representative of the body of preeminently reliable sources on Trump's platform. From BBC News, "US Election: What Would a Donald Trump Presidency Look Like?" (July 21, 2016):
"Here are five policy areas where Mr Trump has bucked the Republican line. [675 words total.] Gay rights [17.6%]. National security [18.1%]. Immigration [19.3%]. Trade [20.7%]. Foreign policy [24.3%]."
If you analyze the '771 draft by IHTS (114 words total), you get: 0% – 14% – 60% – 19% – 5%. We could rebalance by removing all of the parenthetical material about historical immigration policy and substituting material about Trump's 'weightiest' policies in the gay-rights and foreign-policy areas. (Like: 'Trump has opposed a state law limiting transgender persons' access to bathroom facilities...' 'Trump maintains that the U.S. must have an "unpredictable" foreign policy to keep its adversaries from anticipating its actions...' Or whatever language you think fits here.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The "guide" I used in above draft (for better or worse) was to include after "platform" only items listed under "Positions" on the Trump campaign website. (Beyond that there are so many other position points that could be mentioned besides those I did, so what guide for inclusion/priority/weight? Including: recapturing manufacturing jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, modernizing the military, reforming education, cutting waste, national debt, etc.) IHTS (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Good work, IHTS, I endorse this wording. A couple of minor tweaks: don't capitalize Veterans Care. And instead of tax reform it would be more accurate to say "tax reductions"; that was certainly all he talked about in his acceptance speech. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. And if somebody objects to "nations" he has also said "areas of the world". --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I changed "tax reductions" to "tax cuts" (originally chose "tax reform" to incorporate tax code simplification, but cuts prob carries more weight), and kept the more common word "countries" (= "nations"). Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Support per WP:CON. I maintain my WP:BALASPS concern that we're overweighting his immigration policy, but this does look like a reasonable compromise. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC) This does look like a reasonable compromise -- to us, the 3 editors still contributing to the discussion at "Term 'terrorist countries'". But it may not look like a reasonable compromise to editors who haven't been following this thread for the understandable reason that the term 'terrorist countries' no longer appears in the article. Not a consensus edit yet, but a good edit nonetheless, and one that needed to be made without delay. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh? I don't think Trump himself uses the term "terrorist countries" much. It seems much more appropriate for us to use the wording he himself uses, doesn't it? That was pretty much the direction this discussion took. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
100% correct, MelanieN. I didn't make clear in my amended comment that I was talking about our final draft of the passage in graf 3 where we're trying to provide a compilation of his most important positions. (We do have a consensus about the topic named in the section heading: the term "terrorist countries" isn't nearly as appropriate as the wording Trump actually uses.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Sr?

Given that there is a Donald Trump Jr., isn't the presidential candidate's full name Donald John Trump Sr.? Genealogizer (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Not unless he chooses to use that style. And afaik he does not. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I see that Trump Jr has a son called Donald John Trump III. By your rationale, that would make Trump Jr's name Donald John Trump II. But he doesn't use such a style, and it's not up to WP to create one for him.
(I can't believe I'm having anything whatsoever to do with Donald Trump, but hey, Wikipedia calls on all of us to make extreme sacrifices sometimes ...). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

John Barron (pseudonym)

I created the article John Barron (pseudonym) given coverage of Trump's use of this name. Improvements/expansion welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I marked for CSD, if it's notable, it can be included in this article. But we don't need an entire article just saying that Trump used a pseudonym. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Articles go into detail about how and when the pseudonym was used. There is more to the story than just "Trump used a pseudonym". I don't think CSD is appropriate, but you can take to AfD if you feel strongly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Another Believer: This one pseudonym isn't enough to support an article But I suggest you expand it to include his other pseudonyms, including John Miller which got a lot of publicity in May, and move it to Donald Trump pseudonyms. That might (or might not) pass the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Great idea! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the speedy deletion tag saying the article was under development and asking for 24 hours before re-tagging. However, the article is going to have to demonstrate significance by then. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Well, shoot, AB, I thought YOU were going to use the additional time I gave you to expand the article! Turned out I had to do it myself. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Oh, wow, thank you so much. You've shortened my forever-long "to do" list by a notch. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged racism

The following was removed from the lede, but I suggest to move it to the body, under the 'Other personal information" section or something of the like. I don't want to reinstate contentious content without getting consensus though:

Trump is often described as a racist individual by, among others, various politicians, news media, and academics.[1][2][3][4][5]

Henry TALK 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump’s Attack on Judge ‘Racist,’ but Still Backs Him". The New York Times (The New York Times). The New York Times. Retrieved 21 July 2016. 
  2. ^ Sakuma, Amanda. "Why Donald Trump’s racist remarks matter". MSNBC Online (MSNBC). MSNBC. Retrieved 21 July 2016. 
  3. ^ Walsh, Diedre (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan rips Donald Trump remarks as 'textbook definition of a racist comment'". CNN Online (CNN). CNN. Retrieved 21 July 2016. 
  4. ^ Lemire, Johnothan. "Poll: Most young people dislike GOP's Trump, say he's racist". Big Story by Associated Press. Associated Press. Retrieved 21 July 2016. 
  5. ^ Milbank, Dana. "Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist". Washington Post Online. The Washington Post. Retrieved 21 July 2016. 

I don't think anyone is calling him, the individual, a racist. What they are saying in these sources is that some of the things he SAYS are racist. But either way, I generally feel that name-calling or inflammatory labeling like this does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Source #5 is calling him, the individual, racist, in my mind. The other sources are more referring to his statements (as far as my Internet connection can show them, that is). These two things are not the same (inferring the first from the second is WP:SYNTH), I am dubious that #5 has enough "source strength" to justify putting such a strong statement in the lead section, the others most likely don't.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. WaPo meets RS and is generally reliable for a BLP, but as per policy and longstanding tradition, serious claims like being a racist require serious and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Moreover, the WaPo source isn't even an actual article, but rather explicitly marked as an opinion piece. It isn't even attributed by the Editorial board, but rather has a byline attributing it to one columnist who has been criticized for some very questionable writings multiple times in the past. At this time, calling Trump a racist is not supported by the sourcing required for such a weighty claim. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Refusing to rent to black apartment applicants is a racist action, not just a racist statement. --Nbauman (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the sources do not describe Trump as a racist, but his comments. Furthermore, per WP:WEASEL, we should not say "is often described as," which is a conclusion of the editor not found in any of the sources and therefore violates WP:NOR. I would point out too that Mexican is not a race but a nationality, just as American is. TFD (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Not only is "Mexican" not a race, neither are "Latino" or "Hispanic". Not only are "Latino" and "Hispanic" not races, neither are even ethnicities. The media wildly ignores this and labels all three as "race". Amazing how the media supports drama and lack of education. Even PBS. IHTS (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – These accusations are mostly based on fantasies of the commentators and the echo chamber of the media circus (which Trump loves to provoke, granted). Look at the numerous people from minorities who have been employed in his businesses. Look at his promotion of women to executive positions, even decades ago. Look at the convention speakers he invited over the last few days: plenty of women, black people, latinos, Asian immigrants, a gay billionaire, prayers from 4 different religions, etc. I don't think any prior GOP candidate achieved such diversity. — JFG talk 02:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My general view about name-calling, denunciations, and other attacks on a BLP subject is that if an editor really really thinks they belong in Wikipedia then we should not censor the material, but rather we should follow WP:Preserve by including the material in the encyclopedia, but at the BLP of the attacker rather than the BLP of the attackee, except in very unusual cases where the attack is very very widely covered by reliable sources. That's especially advisable where the attacker is less notable than the attackee, because then the attacker's BLP usually can accommodate the material more easily than the attackee's BLP without issues of undue weight arising. Also, the proposed language is way too vague, since it doesn't give any clue about which races he's allegedly racist against.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - Are we actually going to need an ivote here? This is ridiculous. Close as "Absurd". Doc talk 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    It can't be closed until Jack Upland adds his customary sarcastic comment/humor. IHTS (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Screw that. Why do editors who are unabashed haters of Trump get to steer the content of this supposedly neutral article? It's a joke. It just defies NPOV. Doc talk 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well, it seems settled then. Henry TALK 07:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Not a rapist, not a racist, large hands, large signature. Everything's placid in the lily pond.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Nothing about speech plagiarism? It was really, really big news... Doc talk 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    (Just in case this was a real comment rather than your usual sarcasm): The plagiarism was big news about Melania and is in her article. It's also the convention article. There's no justification for mentioning it in the Donald Trump article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Person or politician?

Should the infobox use person-infobox parameters or politician-infobox parameters?

A. Politician

The infobox should use the "officeholder/politician" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

1. The Trump article should be comparable to the Clinton article (rev 73106517), and the Clinton infobox uses officeholder/politician parameters.

2. If Trump has been more responsible for leading the Donald J Trump for President campaign than the Trump Organization business, his primary occupation is that of 'politician'.

B. Person

The infobox should use the "person" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

1. Clinton is a former officeholder; Trump isn't.

2. If Trump has been more responsible for leading the Trump Organization business than the Donald J Trump for President campaign, his primary occupation is that of entrepreneur (or whatever), not politician.

C. Person parameters with some politician parameters

The infobox should use a person template with an embedded officeholder/politician module. Reasoning:

1. From Trump's perspective, he studied business science, not political science; and his "usual or principal work" is in business, not politics.

2. But from the general public's perspectives, Trump has more significance as a political nominee than as a business entrepreneur. So the infobox should include elements of both.

___

Some consequences:

Prop A. Signature size: 128px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, donaldjtrump.com/about

Prop B. Signature size: 150px. Website: Trump Organization, trump.com/biography

Prop C: Signature size: 128px or 150px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, Trump Organization, or both

-- 03:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support B or C. oppose A. The Donald J Trump for President campaign itself gives Trump's title and affiliation as "Chairman and President, The Trump Organization". --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Just B. No change from the current infobox. If he gets elected President, we can switch to a "politician/office holder" infobox, but at this point he is a businessperson and candidate; he has never held office, so what do you need the officeholder parameters for? Clinton, in contrast, has held both elected and appointive public office so the "officeholder" infobox is appropriate for her. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

New image proposal

I think we should use this image is the main in infobox because it's the best we have. I know it is from 2012 but he still looks the same. Clinton's image is from 2009. Your opinions?

Proposed image

Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • He looks like Liberace in that photo. No. IHTS (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There are probably some quality photos of Trump at the 2016 convention, so let's focus on new photos rather than re-hashing the old ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seems ok to me, but I'm sure there are better and more recent photos that are free images. Remember, free images are always preferred over non-free image types. Henry TALK 18:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I've looked on Flickr and tried to find some but there aren't any from his campaign trails. If there were I would certainly propose it. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure: That photo looks a little better, but it doesn't seem to be spontaneous like the one in the article. I don't think it is worth changing. FabulousFerd (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If this photo had been taken more recently I would have supported its use - maybe it should be used somewhere else in the article? As its four years out of date however I don't think it can be the main infobox picture. Ebonelm (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Shows his true skin color (orange) but is full of noise and if you look in the bottom left corner you can see an ambiguous object. However, still better than the current photo.--Proud User (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No It's not better than current image.CFredkin (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No – Old picture, no better than current one either in subject's portrayal or in image quality. — JFG talk 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove Politico

The editor who wants Politico removed for being biased needs to make his case. I have not encountered any reliability or bias problems with Politico on the other politicians pages that I've edited. Until the editor has shown that Politico is not a reliable, non-partisan source, the Politico reference that was removed should be restored. The editor who made the accusation has made a series of ridiculous and inexplicable pro-Trump edits to this page, which casts further doubt on his accusation being in good faith. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't actually need the Politico reference. I've restored the material, without the Politico reference - and added the other editor's new material as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. My philosophy, which is also the case in the section below this: If somebody objects to a source, don't go to the mat over it, just find another source. If the material is worth including here, there will always be multiple sources--MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
I see where you're coming from but I think it's a mistake to pander to editors who don't have a leg to stand on. It might encourage disingenuous claims, and make editors let disingenuous editors influence them as they consider contributing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN's comment is worth considering, Snooganssnoogans. Also consider that per WP:BIASED, a reliable source isn't required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Per WP:SOURCE, it is supposed to be mainstream (at least if it's used to support a challenged statement in a BLP). And some editors would reasonably question whether Politico is mainstream or whether a particular article in Politico has been fact-checked.
These five sources are the most mainstream as measured by circulation: Reuters, AP, BBC News, Time, WSJ. And their news articles are usually fact-checked. (The opinion pieces are not.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 05:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If the specific Politico article is bad, I think it's fair to delete it (and the same applies to any source, regardless of how respected the outlet happens to be). That was not the editor's complaint though. Nor did he complain that Politico wasn't mainstream enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Snooganssnoogans, you have my recommendation: don't make Wikipedia into a WP:battleground. Don't make it a matter of "principle" or "pandering" or "encouraging disingenuous claims" over a trivial matter like one source where multiple sources are available, or the size of a signature. These political pages are charged enough as it is without going to war over something where perfectly acceptable alternatives are available. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The minuscule sz the sig was shrunk to wasn't "a trivial matter" in my view, obviously. You obviously disagree. (OK. So when my opinion differs from yours, re anything, starting now, it's OK then that I publicly characterize to others that your interest is in trivia and your opinion is trivial!? Good one!) Perhaps you s/ hat that thread and label the hat "Trivia"!? (Never mind two editors relentlessly bashed me over the default long-standing size for no valid reasons, mocked and ridiculed, extending the thread without end. And opened a WP:EWN. And reverted almost daily.) IHTS (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm one of the two editors mentioned by IHTS. I ought to acknowledge that what he says here is not wholly unmerited, MelanieN.
The matter was resolved. No blood, no foul. Let's not bring it up again.
I otherwise agree with your reply to Snooganssnoogans's comment. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. Clearly the signature issue wasn't trivial to those engaged in it. and I shouldn't have brought it up because it blurred my point: not to take a stand about things that DON'T really matter. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. IHTS (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think Politico is sufficiently reliable for BLPs. Particularly in the case of the US election. If it wasn't a BLP issue I'd be indifferent but not in this case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Housing discrimination case

@CFredkin: You removed this sentence from the article: According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." - because you said the source, a book by a former employee, was unreliable. Let me suggest the following sources instead: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The U.S. Justice Department. Those are enough to make a large section, but I think we can get by with a sentence or two. That is, unless you think it deserves a larger airing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The suit was settled without a finding of guilt on the part of the Trump Organization, and there is no evidence that Trump himself was personally involved. I believe this sort of content is usually covered as a footnote.CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Objection, Your Honor! The term "colored" is found in the Post story but not in the Times story or the Justice Department press release (which relates to "emotional-support animals"). Also, a Justice Department press release generally isn't used as a reliable source. (For a major exception, see WP:SPS regarding data compilations.)
In this case, plaintiff Justice Department's position was never upheld by a court; and the Post mentions that it was never upheld by a court. So we'd have to include that clarification in our article.
In common-law countries like the U.S. (not France), one attorney's allegations are as authoritative as another attorney's -- including a government attorney's. Here, defendant Trump's attorney made allegations about the plaintiff, and the Post reported them. So we'd have no reason not to include at least one of them in our article too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As a short-term compromise, we could (and probably should!) cite the Times article as a source for the material about Trump's having received prominent media exposure for decades. (One of the captions says, "Readers of The Times have known him for 42 years.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason not to report what the Justice Department said. Certainly it is only an allegation but that is how we report it. TFD (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No offense, TFD, but the reason we never report allegations as being more than allegations has nothing to do with WP:V...
There seem to be three questions here. (1) Should we act as a 'conduit' for the claim that was alleged? (2) If so, should we act as a conduit for the counterclaim that was alleged? (3) And if so, should we mention that neither the claim nor the counterclaim was upheld by a court?
For the reasons given, I would say "no"; "(if so, yes)"; and "(if so, yes)". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We decide whether anything belongs in Wikipedia by WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Multiple WP:RSs have reported the Justice Department allegations, so it's a significant viewpoint and according to WP:WEIGHT should be fairly represented in the article.
So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (1) is "Yes."
Also according to WP:WEIGHT we are required to represent all sides.
So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (2) is "Yes."
I assume Trump's advocates have said in some WP:RS that the claim wasn't upheld in court.
So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (3) is "Yes."
(BTW, most lawsuits are settled without a judicial determination in the courts. WP:RSs regularly report the allegations made in court. Using court records is a complete defense against libel. I would like to know any Wikipedia policies that excludes them.)--Nbauman (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You brought up an important point, Nbauman: "Using court records is a complete defense against libel." True in some states -- but not in others.
"The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article... Just because someone else said it does not mean that a news organization cannot be sued for republishing it..."
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The First Amendment Handbook.
Here's my personal read on Trump's viewpoint, based on the Post and Times stories:
"'What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,' Trump wrote." Trump reportedly believed that renting to welfare cases would cause his mostly lower- and middle-income tenants (both white and black) to flee. But he was "satisfied that the agreement did not 'compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Dervorguilla, no offense taken, but I never mentioned V. Certainly we should not report anything unless it is sourced but whether we report it depends on weight. Mentioning an allegation is not the same thing as acting as a conduit for it, unless we state the allegation as fact. We have articles for example about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but that does not mean we endorse them. TFD (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
True, we're not endorsing them, TFD, just mentioning them. But that in itself can amount to republishing. From AP, Legal Principles of Publication:
"Liability for republication: the 'conduit' fallacy.- A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement was actually made, accurately transcribed, and clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so."
When we were children, we understood this principle intuitively (as it applies to retelling slanderous allegations about other children). It takes a semester or two of expository writing to make us forget.
Happily, the principle does not apply here (as far as I know). No need to call Saul!!! --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry I brought up libel, since it's turned into a distraction. But you have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook:
Fair report
Libelous statements made by others in certain settings often are conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to material from official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings, city council meetings and grand jury deliberations. In most states, accurate reports of arrests, civil and criminal trials and official statements made to, by and about law enforcement officials are privileged....
Wikipedia rules and guidelines as I stated above say that anything that is reported by multiple WP:RSs belongs in the article, along with opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia rules and guidelines govern, not your personal opinion of fairness or whether "allegations" belong. Allegations belong in Wikipedia if they are repeated by multiple WP:RSs. You have not shown that the deletion is justified under Wikipedia rules and guidelines.
Roy Cohen in his press statements, by ignoring the significant Justice Department charges, deceptively made it look as if the issue was discrimination against welfare recipients, rather than discrimination against blacks. The way this entry is edited now, we also deceptively make it look as if the issue was welfare recipients, not blacks. To stop being deceptive, we must state the main charges against Trump: That he discriminated against blacks.
I think we have a consensus to restore it. Is there anyone other than User:Dervorguilla who wants to delete it? If so, explain how that decision is jusitfied by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Otherwise I'm going to put it back. --13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Nbauman, you said: "We ... deceptively make... To stop being deceptive, we must state ..." I for one categorically deny your accusation that I or the other editors here have been deceiving people.
"You have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook". Good point. I should have expanded the quote to include related material from the "Fair Report" section:
Fair report. In most states, accurate reports of ... trials ... are privileged. Reports of this nature must be accurate and fair in order for the reporter to invoke the fair-report privilege...
Not just accurate. Accurate and fair.
And as you observed, the information must be reported "in good faith". Here the term "good-faith" excludes conduct that "violates community standards of ... fairness or reasonableness". Black's Law Dictionary. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The housing case is more fully covered at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. See WP:Summary style. Therefore, we don't need to list all the details here about things he was never found guilty of. So it appears that CFredkin and myself are two additional editors who think this is inappropriate for the main text of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't have consensus yet. Here is what used to be in the article: Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." The question is whether to include the second sentence; we still have the first sentence, which says the Justice Department sued the Trumps for fair housing violations. That may be enough; if we are going to go on to detail what Justice said, we would also have to detail what the Trumps said and the item would become overly long. After reading the extensive discussion here, I think we should keep just the first sentence, and replace the book source with one of the sources I listed at the beginning of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I generally agree. But, of course, we can't say that he was accused without indicating that there was never any conviction (Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We could add "the case was settled out of court". I think (without taking the time to look) that the sources I proposed do say that much. If people want more detail than that, they can go the "legal cases" article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dervorguilla, reporting allegations made in official court records is not libellous. Newspapers routinely report criminal charges made against people before final judgment. As a general rule, we are fairly safe using mainstream media as sources, because they take great care to avoid libel. TFD (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, they report when charges are filed, before the case is closed. But AFTER the case is closed, they generally mention the outcome as well as the charges. The sources I listed above all say the case was settled. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
In scientific articles, WP:NOTJOURNAL applies: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links"
I think the same rule applies in articles like this. You know that most readers will not follow the links, either to a footnote with expanded text or to a "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" article (which is a WP:POVFORK if you remove all the unfavorable information in the original article and move it to the forked article.)
It's not enough to say that "the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings," without also giving the specific violations: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." That's a serious charge -- not offering apartments to black people. These specific violations are supported by multiple WP:RS, which is the criteria for including information in a Wikipedia article. The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information. This was the underlying violation. If you don't know that you don't know what the case was about. It's misleading to talk about the welfare issue without revealing that the original charge was for refusing to rent to black people. If you're so worried about becoming overly long then take out the reference to welfare recipients. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
" The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information". The thing is, that is NOT a fact - it is an allegation. Denied by the Trumps, and never established as fact in a court of law. At the very least, if we include the disputed sentence, we should also add a sentence saying "The Trumps strongly denied the accusations, and the case was settled out of court." --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, now I see the sentence you are referring to. I missed it earlier. It follows the others and says "Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.),[33] Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant."[34]" With that already in the article, we certainly could include Justice's allegations. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
User:MelanieN, are you saying that we should not mention the allegations of not renting to blacks after the case is settled, even though the allegations were announced by the Justice Department, are in the public record, and were (and still are) widely reported in WP:RS?
What reason under Wikipedia rules and guidelines do you have for not including them?
For Wikipedia, the criteria for including a fact is that it has been widely reported in WP:RS. That's one of the Five Pillars WP:5P2 of Wikipedia. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."
What about the Bill Cosby case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations Most of that is allegations that were not resolved in court and settled. Should Wikipedia eliminate all the Bill Cosby allegations? --Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I am saying that we can include the Justice allegation sentence, provided we also have the "Trump denial and out of court settlement" sentence. We currently do have that sentence, so I would support restoring the Justice allegations (with a better source). --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
User:MelanieN, here's the sentence at issue: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored.""
This has been reported by multiple WP:RSs.
I think that sentence belongs in the article, because of the multiple WP:RS. Do you object? --Nbauman (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually the sentence at issue is " According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."". I agree with including it as long as the bolded portion is also included. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I object to including it because the place for such stuff that was never proved and never admitted is (if anywhere at Wikipedia) at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Lots of people have accused Trump of lots of things, but I think this main biography does not have room for the accusations that didn't pan out. Just like counterpart Democratic BLPs. The goal here has been made quite clear by omission of "according to the Justuce Department", but even inclusion of that phrase is misleading since the Justice Department later backed off (without even any allegation of extreme carelessness).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Anythingyouwant, the criteria for including something in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability and WP:RS, it is not whether something was proved by a court decision or some other level of evidence that you demand. What are the specific Wikipedia rules and guidelines that say that it should be removed?
The Bill Cosby entry contains "stuff that was never proved" in court and never will be because of the statute of limitations. I think that WP:Verifiability and WP:RS is enough to leave it in. Do you think Wikipedia rules require us to delete that stuff from the Bill Cosby article? --Nbauman (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll say yet again, I have no objection to including these particular details in Wikipedia. See Legal affairs of Donald Trump and see WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What specifically does WP:Summary style say that would require us to delete the sentence, "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" from this article and move it to Legal affairs of Donald Trump? --Nbauman (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This article "should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me be clearer in my opinion: if we do not re-add the "According to the Justice Department" sentence, then we should delete the sentence that follows it, the one that begins "After an unsuccessful countersuit..." We can't include a full rebuttal and quote from Trump, if we don't give the Justice Department's position as well. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with removing the sentence beginning "After an unsuccessful countersuit...".CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Once again, I want to include in the main Donald Trump article the following sentence, based on multiple WP:RS: "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" Can anyone give a reason based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this sentence should not go back in to the main article? What is the specific text of the guidelines? --Nbauman (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are four relevant policy reasons, Nbauman.

WP:SS (reviewed by Anythingyouwant).

WP:BALASPS, applying WP:WEIGHT to isolated events of lesser overall significance to a topic. The Times story itself assigns 390 words to a 1978 decision about the NY convention center but only 343 words to the fair-housing suit. Accordingly the suit must be treated as being of lesser overall significance. (It was headlined in only 1 front-page story; the decision, in 2.)

NPOV. Nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."

WP:CON, as it would apply to "editors' legitimate concerns" about fairness and reasonableness. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 11:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Dervorguilla, if you don't want to include this sentence, are you OK with deleting the sentence that follows ("After an unsuccessful countersuit") that presents the Trump's position on the case? IMO we can't give Trump a platform without also giving Justice a platform, per Balance aspects. --MelanieN (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence that began "After an unsuccessful countersuit...." since I'm the one who inserted it, and no one has objected to removing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the verbiage about Trump's having marked applications provided by blacks with the letter "C" for "colored". (The applications provided by the Urban League were likewise marked, albeit with a more politically appropriate acronym.)
Please advise whether the passage below falls short of any WP:SS, WP:BALASPS, and NPOV requirements, and whether (in your personal opinion) it sounds less than fair and reasonable.
Trump first came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant.
Trump drew greater attention in 1978 when the city awarded him the contract to design and build the Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for construction.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
That's acceptable to me. As long as it says specifically, "refusing to rent to blacks."--Nbauman (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Text integrated into article after adding 49-word ref quote and correcting own error in graf 2.
... He came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant.[1] ...
Trump drew greater public attention in 1978 when the city chose his site as the location for its Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the construction project.[1]
  1. ^ a b Dunlap, David (July 30, 2015). "1973: Meet Donald Trump". New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-07-03. Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not “compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant”. [¶] ... New York City was determined to build a convention center... Trump held an option on one of the possible sites... 
I also removed 3 questionable sources: 1 juvenile literature and 2 nonmainstream newspapers (Daily Beast and Salon). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Responding to revision 731536028 by CFredkin ("Removing statement not supported by source"), I'm adding a source and clarifying the statement.

... He came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings.[1] The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were legally discriminating based on welfare status, not race.[2] Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against qualified applicants.[1] The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said that civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".[2]
  1. ^ a b Dunlap, David (July 30, 2015). "1973: Meet Donald Trump". New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-07-03. Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not ‘compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.’ ... New York City was determined to build a convention center... Trump held an option on one of the possible sites... 
  2. ^ a b Kranish, Michael; O'Harrow, Robert (January 23, 2016). "Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it". Washington Post. Trump [said] the company wanted to avoid renting apartments to welfare recipients of any color but never discriminated based on race. ... Civil rights groups in the city viewed the ... company as just one example of a nationwide problem... But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact... 

I'm also adding material about the Trumps' getting targeted because they were "big names" in comparison to other real-estate companies of concern to civil-rights groups. (So says the former chair of thecity's Human Rights Commission.)

This passage actually might work better as the corresponding ref quote:

2. ^ "Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’"

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 26

Trump doesn't appear to use the word "discriminated" in the sources I've seen. I also think it would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from using Politifact?

I see Politifact articles are often used in Trump's article. Politifact's parent company openly endorses and donates to Hillary Clinton. There is a clear bias in their articles. Yes, sometimes what they write is relatively objective, but there is a very clear bias other times. Can we just please refrain from using them from now on? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Politifact is operated by the Tampa Bay Times which has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. Nevertheless, you need to take this to RSN. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course we will not refrain from using it. If we said we cannot use any media that is linked to any parent company which support one candidate or the other, then we would have virtually no media remaining. So the answer is an obvious "no!". Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This comes up at times on politics pages and is AFAIK always rejected because the Tampa Bay Times is a reputable, reliable source by any standard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you may as well refrain from using The Washington Times, well known for its conservative bias. I think the consensus at Wikipedia is to use any reliable source even if it has a known (or suspected bias). This forces us to cite dueling sources on occasion; is this right, guys? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We do use respected sources that have a conservative or liberal bias (although I wouldn't necessarily include the Moonie Times as a "respected source"). But nobody has alleged that Politifact has a bias; the only objection given here seems to be its ownership. As pointed out by Jeppiz, all papers have an ownership; the question is whether the paper has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Politifact does have that reputation. It is widely quoted and respected by media of all stripes. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Washington Times is known for its conservative bias but that's not the problem. Nobody minds using the Wall Street Journal on US politics pages or the Financial Times or Economist on UK politics pages, despite their alleged biases. That's because those sources are reliable and respected. The problem with the Washington Times is that it's rubbish and unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Bias and reliability are two separate issues. Sources must be reliable, Wikipedia articles must be neutral. TFD (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
And neither has been alleged as a problem with Politifact, so maybe we can end this discussion? Clearly there is consensus that Politifact can be used as a source. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
PolitiFact is an invaluable source - and any suggestion that somehow it is meaningfully "biased" against Trump is utter nonsense. As to the Tampa Bay Times and PolitiFact: as is well known, newspapers maintain a separation between their news side and their editorial side. The fact that a newspaper's editorial board and editorial page may take a certain view says absolutely nothing about the quality of the newsroom.
As for the Tampa Bay Times: the newspaper has won ten Pulitzer Prizes and is the largest-circulating newspaper in the third- or fourth-largest state. Moreover, it is, uniquely, owned not by a for-profit media company, but by a nonprofit school of journalism, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. I have seen no evidence at all that the Poynter Institute "openly endorses" or "donates" to any political candidate, and claims to the contrary are irresponsible. Neutralitytalk 21:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor removes Trump's own clarification of position, editor goes with his own preferred position

I see absolutely no reason why ThiefofBagdad deleted this text: "Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants.[1] He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory."[1]"

Given the confusion surrounding Trump's Muslim ban and his failure to put out a specific plan, it's absolutely essential that this context be included. It's absolutely unacceptable for ThiefofBagdad to decide which of the numerous positions Trump has proposed on this issue should be included and which not. I ask for this content to be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Snooganssnoogan. I was about to write about this myself. User:ThiefOfBagdad has been making a lot of changes based on their own interpretation. For example, they changed "countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States" to "countries that have been compromised by terrorism", saying that was the wording Trump used in his acceptance speech. When I reverted to the previous consensus-approved version, they restored their own version, saying "Trump has changed his views on many things, which is why we've decided to stick with what he said in his RNC acceptance speech. Also, he said it's an "expansion", then continued to contradict himself. We're sticking with what was said at the RNC." Who is "we" and when did "we" decide that? Not on this page, where such decisions need to be made. ThiefOfBagdad did not participate at all in the discussions here. ThiefOfBagdad, I call your attention to the Discretionary Sanctions on this page, and I remind you that you cannot just insist on your own version and ignore consensus. Repeated reverting, or reinsertion of disputed material, can be a blockable offense at an article which is under Discretionary Sanctions. You must reach consensus on the talk page, and not keep reverting in the meantime. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I see that they added an invisible comment saying "DO NOT use "Muslim ban". Trump has adapted his immigration plan. The lead is no place for scrapped or conflicting proposals made by candidates and it's already discussed below in the relevant section.". I deleted it, as being one person's opinion and not consensus-based. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My names seems to have been revoked here. In accordance with the WP:BOLD policy, I felt completely in my right as a regular editor of Trump's page to undo Snooganssnoogans' edit. Trump, in his RNC acceptance speech (watched by nearly 35 million people), said: "We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place." The "vetting mechanisms" part can be hard to understanding for some readers, so the lead states Trump wants to "suspend immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." I think it's hard for anyone to disagree up to this point.
Now, Trump went on Meet The Press today and was asked if his new statment should be interpreted as a 'rollback' from his Muslim ban. Famously, Trump has trouble admitting to his own faults (he has admitted that himself) and obviously he didn't say it should be interpreted as a 'rollback', so he said 'you could say it's an expansion'. Yes, you could say that, but that's obviously not what it is. Why not? Because seconds later he states: 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. It's clear the Muslim ban is not happening, and it's been scrapped for a while now. Back in June, Trump gave a speech in which he said: "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." Yes, the plan has again changed slightly since then, but the Muslim ban has been scrapped for a while now. Yes, Trump's words can be confusing, and if taken directly without context from a headline, they can be misinterpreted. As of now, even his own campaign has refused to acknowledge any further plans for a "Muslim ban". I hope I've made myself clear and I hope we can finally put aside this "Muslim ban" that was proposed last year and is now rather clearly scrapped. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It’s amazing to read your editing habits. You’re basically re-interpreting Trump’s statements and intentions in a way where you don’t take him at his word. If Trump says something, use his direct quotes, not your strange re-interpretations. If Trump says "until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place”, use that. Don’t use your guess as to what that refers to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Muslim ban proposals, how do you know if it’s an expansion or rollback? It’s Trump’s policy, let the man speak for himself. For all we know, Trump sees this as a more enforceable and legitimate way to exclude Muslims (by prohibiting immigration from certain states, which would be constitutional AFAIK). That’s my interpretation of this. The difference between you and me is that I don’t add my guess as to what he’s truly saying, I add what the man says and let the readers decide for themselves. That’s what editors are supposed to do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, you don't read Wikipedia's policies. It states editors must avoid using esoteric terms. I have a hard time understand how the average reader would understand what "until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place" even really means. And did you not even read what Trump said or are you refusing to take context into account? He literally says 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. You ENTIRE argument is based on the fact he said 'you could say something'. That's not an argument. The. Muslim. Ban. Is. Scrapped. And honestly, could you please stop being so rude. I feel very much attacked by the way you're speak to me. Remember to be kind. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing esoteric about the term "vetting mechanisms". If Trump says somewhere that the Muslim ban is scrapped, you can add that if you want. That he considers his new proposal to be an expansion is crucial context. That you happen to disagree with Trump's description of his own plan is immaterial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's debatable how esoteric "vetting mechanisms" is, alright. But how hypocritical can you be? I MUST refrain from stating it is not a Muslim ban, yet you get the privilege of going around and claiming it still is. Right now, it's unsure, so why even mention it. Just mention what he has said clearly, that he wants to suspend immigration from countries with terrorism links. That's all. The Muslim part is debatable, so why include it for now? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me be clear: (i) I don't want to add a sentence that says "Trump still supports a Muslim ban"; (ii) I am 100% fine with text saying that wants to suspend immigration from countries with terrorism links. All I'm saying is that Trump's own characterization of his proposals should ALSO be included. See the start of this talk page section. Those are the two sentences I want to add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Somehow that section has gotten totally away from the wording that we hammered out, after much discussion, above on this page. I have restored that consensus-based version and said that any changes to it should be agreed to at this page. This is the version I restored:

Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)

Snoongassnogan, what was it you wanted to add? Personally I would like to add something about ISIS, because he made such a point of it in his acceptance speech. He mentioned "a goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". How about: Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order" and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism"? That would lead naturally into the immigration ban in the next sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That section barely takes into account the things Trump said in his RNC speech, you know, that speeched watched by nearly 35 million people and considered the most important speech a presidential candidate can give besides their presidential victory speech? The amount of "quotation marks" in that lead is disturbing and incredibly misleading. It misleads people into thinking that NAFTA or TPP is "unfair", or that his immigration policies are "real", or that he's in favor of "law and order". It's completely subjective, misleading, and doesn't belong in the page, much less the lead. In his RNC speech, Trump did not even mention renegotiating U.S.–China trade in his speech and it has never been a major part of his plans.Also, it doesn't even say 'his platform includes'. It acts like that's all Trump stands for. And it doesn't even mention ISIS, one of his biggest topics since 2015 behind immigration. Also, how is having a scrapped position of his even allowed in this lead, that's absolutely ridiculous. "Vetting mechanisms" is also way too difficult for the average reader to understand (please pay attention to Wikipedia's policies). This version is, in my opinion, way better than what we currently have:
His platform includes combatting illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, reforming healthcare by replacing the Affordable Care Act, rebuilding the U.S. military while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.
Could we please reach consensus on using this, even if it's slightly adjusted. The current lead is an outright disaster. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What this boils down to is that you're selectively deleting things that Trump has said at various points, imagining what his "true" positions happen to be and unnecessarily re-phrasing quotes. US-China trade has by any account of the campaign been a major feature, as his criticism of NAFTA/TPP. The fact that you call the use of quotation marks disturbing is in itself disturbing. I'm not sure what the lede looked like before, but your certainly the last person I want writing it given your strange editing habits and pro-Trump bias. You don't even seem familiar with his policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you stop being so rude to me? I have worked on Trump's page for so long now, and huge parts of this page have been updated and improved by me for over a year now. I'm VERY familiar with his policies. And by the way, you call me "pro-Trump", yet I see you're a big fan of Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton, as I can see in your edits. Perhaps I could call you anti-Trump, then? The lead is unclear. Whom is calling these trade agreements "unfair" readers will ask themselves. People unfamiliar with Trump's policies won't know the answer. And if the US-China trade is such a big deal to Trump's campaign, why didn't he even mention it in his RNC speech? ISIS is a MUCH bigger aspect of his campaign than US/China trade. You need to get out of your head and put your shoes in those of other people. You're incredibly rude to me, yet I have done nothing but try to help. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump referred to China three times in his speech. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he referred to the country that exists China, but not to the trade between the U.S. and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talkcontribs) 22:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
He expressed his opposition to China's entry to the WTO. He said he would stop China's "outrageous theft of intellectual property," "illegal dumping" and "devastating currency manipulation," adding, "They are the greatest that ever came about; they are the greatest currency manipulators ever!". He also said: "Our horrible trade agreements with China, and many others, will be totally renegotiated. " Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Snooganssnoogans. ThiefOfBagdad's version is completely unacceptable and dramatically inferior to the current version. It presumes the truth of several highly contentious assumptions. To take just a few problems:
  • it presumes that the U.S. military is in shambles and needs to be "rebuilt" when in fact the quality of the military has not been degraded (see here, here)
  • it assumes that building a wall would "combat illegal immigration" when virtually all the experts say that such a wall, even if it was practical to build, would be highly ineffective (see here)
  • it strongly implies that the trade agreements that Trump has lambasted have in fact been "unfavorable to American workers" (a statement with which most economists would say is either highly oversimplified or downright wrong).
Neutralitytalk 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The current lead implies that NAFTA and TPP are "unfair", which many disagree on, Trump's immigration policies are "real", which as you say is very controversial, and Trump is the "law and order" candidate, when he's been wanting to punch protesters at his rallies. So the current lead is no better. Just because it's the "words" "are" "in" "quotation marks", doesn't mean the ambiguity has disappeared. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The text could absolutely clarify that Trump calls them “unfair”, “real” and so forth. I agree with you there. I think more issues could also be included, though without your particular phrasing that policy X will have impact Y. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of quotation marks around "real" and "unfair" and "law and order" is intended to show that those are his actual words, without going into a lot of verbiage "what he considers real", "what he calls unfair". If they strike some people as "scare quotes" we can delete them, although I hesitate to call the trade practices unfair in Wikipedia's voice. I agree about adding something about defeating ISIS; I proposed a wording in my comment above. You seem to think the platform can include only the things he said in his acceptance speech; what about the things he has said, over and over and in writing, in other venues? And the clarifications he has issued after the speech? The current version (the one I just restored) was worked out by multiple editors with diverse views over a period of five or six days. Wikipedia works by consensus. You are free to try to get consensus for parts or all of your version, or to try to work out some kind of merger of the two versions. But calling the product of other people's work an "outright disaster" is not likely to lead you any closer to consensus. And starting a new section below, where you repeat what you said here and insist on your version, is not going to be helpful either. Let's keep the discussion in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's a revised version of the consensus passage, removing the quotes, removing China trade, and adding ISIS. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)
Better, but there's still room for improvent. First of all, going from the fact that he's running for President to the fact that he opposes certain trade agreements is arbitrary. That's part of his platform, as he plans on vetoing such trade agreements. A vague proposal Trump made last year being in the lead is honesty unacceptable.The Muslim ban has been largely scrapped (or at the very least for the most part has been replaced) and should not be in the lead. He's moved on from there, and it's not something he's rallying around anymore. Furthermore, it's discussed in the Presidential campaign section of the page. Also, can we please just avoid quotes in the lead, that's very unprofessional overall. Only main issues should be mentioned as well.

I propose this:

Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions.
That's not bad - actually an improvement in the immigration/wall portion. How about "combatting" instead of "tackling" Islamic terrorism? I see you dropped improving veterans care, but of course both sides claim that so it doesn't add much. I see you are still determined to use the wording "compromised by terrorism," although as far as I know he has only used that phrase once and it isn't even clear what it means - if it means anything. (Are France and the United States compromised by terrorism, having come under attack?) That wording is much more vague that his more usual "areas having a proven history of terrorism against the United States," but it's open to discussion. And whether to include the "Muslim ban" or not was a subject of disagreement above and could certainly be revisited. People? --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts:
1) I liked Thief's rewritten paragraph even better than my own suggested text, it was more professional and more complete. (Like he/she said it's not perfect, but I think it's very good.)
2) "Consensus" wasn't as strong previously as MelanieN has suggested (only ~3 editors, and I was neutral re including "Muslim ban" as previous Trump suggestion, only including it since MelanieN felt strong about it then).
3) It's true that the words put in quotes were done so because they were quoting Trump (for example on his campaign website he explains "real immigration reform"; someone removed the "real" leaving "immigration reform", but EGADS! - that term is meaningless and also touted as goal by Democrats), but I agree with Thief and other editors that scare quotes were/are a bad idea (inherently ambiguous to reader).
4) Re MelanieN's proposal to include text re ISIS, what happened to the sentence in my suggested text: "Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory."? (Someone removed it from both the article and the discussions here.)
5) Instead of "increasing military spending" and "rebuilding the military", Trump has more to point been saying growing (bigger) and "modernizing" the military.
6) I don't like the milquetoast langauge "combatting" and "tackling" re illegal immigration and ISIS, when Trump has consistently been more emphatic than that (better are "ending" and "destroying/defeating", respectively).
7) Again, in my suggested text re "platform" I used as guide only what is listed on Trump campaign website under "Positions" (e.g. including U.S.–China trade, which is a prime issue for Trump, featured also in RNC speech and many rallies). Adding from the RNC speech is reasonable, but use of word "platform" I thought implies specific positions on paper, perhaps!? (Word "platform" either shouldn't be used, or it s/ be made clear what is the meaning/source.)
8) There are so many issues Trump is passionate about/obviously feels are very important that he has often articulated in speeches (e.g., getting rid of Common Core/improving education, rebuilding & modernizing infrastructure [roads/bridges/mass transist/airports/hospitals], dealing w/ the national debt [what other candidate has introduced the issue? none], energy [coal], and so on). (So who prioritizes these issues, or picks & chooses, even in lede, and on what basis?)
9) I must have missed hearing Trump talk about "not rolling back" and "expansion" (i.e. "Muslims" to "territories"), but it seems reasonable he didn't mean expansion = Muslims + territories, rather that when territories are the basis, Muslims are then a subset.
Ok, IHTS (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I hope this comment reaches the right person (MelanieN) (this talk section has gotten very big, very cumbersome to read): I would not opt for very general language and ideas, like wanting to "destroy ISIS", be the "law and order" candidate, "stop islamic terrorism" (who doesn't want to do those things, be that candidate). I'd rather it mention the most salient policies proposed to achieve those things: ISIS, Islamic terrorism (maybe sending troops, increase defense spending, muslim/territorial ban) + for law and order you could say that Trump has spoken of crime worsening in the US (note that Trump has offered zero specific policies or plans relating to law and order, except on illegal immigration, so it's difficult to add specifics besides doomsday rhetoric about crime rising). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Snooganssnoogans. I'm going to be gone for a few days so you all are going to have to reach consensus without me. I think it is very important to include the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (or better yet, "radical Islamic terrorism") because that is an absolute buzzword for the Republicans, who have taunted the Democrats for mostly avoiding that phrase. I would be fine with "destroy ISIS" which is exactly the way Trump talks. I would oppose saying anything about "crime worsening in the US" because although Trump does say it, it is mostly false. Besides, dealing with crime is not primarily a federal function, it's done by the states. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the standard is for citing untruthful statements in ledes on major wiki pages but it seems to fine to say that Trump alleges that crime is worsening (now a major feature of his campaign). Simply saying "destroy ISIS" is a position that every politician says and every reader agrees with. That attitude is not something prominent about Trump, rather it's his methods for solving it (torture, bombing, maybe ground troops, work with Russia) that are prominent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments User:Snooganssnoogans, User:MelanieN and User:Ihardlythinkso. Also, hope you have a great couple of days off, Melanie! I see suggestions for it to be more specific and less generic. I wouldn't use combating twice though, seems a bit much. "Law and order" candidates have existed since Nixon though, this isn't some kind of generic term, this has been used for specific candidates that want to decrease crime, and Trump has even described himself as such. So I propose this:

Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and efforts to subdue Islamic terrorism by sending military troops to defeat ISIS, increasing U.S. defense spending, and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the reference to sending troops to fight ISIS is current given this.CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC) The body of the article also references this source.CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin is correct. It would be more accurate to say that Trump would step up military actions (though he has been a bit unspecific about what that entails exactly). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest just removing this phrase: "by sending military troops to defeat ISIS".CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

NYT: Is Donald Trump a Racist?

Here's the Nicholas Kristoff story. I'm putting it here for reference. I'll come back to it later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html
Is Donald Trump a Racist?
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
JULY 23, 2016

To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental.

A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it. A Trump rental agent said the Trumps wanted to rent only to “Jews and executives,” and discouraged renting to blacks.

Donald Trump furiously fought the civil rights suit in the courts and the media, but the Trumps eventually settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government. Three years later, the government sued the Trumps again, for continuing to discriminate. --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see many issues with this article. First of all, it's clear that there are no actual facts that he did these things. "A former building superintendent" said this, "A Trump rental agent" said that... Where is the proof, where are the documents? Trump even won the case, which would mean that there was a lack of evidence to support the claims. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an op-ed. It shouldn't be included here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you read the article again, you'll see that he said, "I’ve waded through 1,021 pages of documents from that legal battle." The proof is that these statements are supported by sworn testimony in a court case that is public record. The documents are in the federal courthouse, where anybody can verify them. Trump did not "win" the case, he settled. As Kristoff said, "settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government."
Kristoff is a WP:RS. Op-Eds can be included here. According to WP:BIASED, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --Nbauman (talk)
Wrong policy, Nbauman. Snooganssnoogans is paraphrasing WP:NEWSORG (opinion pieces rarely reliable for statements of fact), not WP:BIASED. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another WP:RS that is also based on a review of about 1,000 pages of court documents, and comes to the same conclusions. This article addresses several points that editors have raised and says: (1) There was enormous press coverage and Donald Trump became a "regular presence" on newspaper front pages. This shows how it had a major significance in New York City. (2) the allegations of racial discrimination were based on the sworn statements of "testers" who tried to rent apartments and were turned away. (3) it again describes the coding of "C". (4) it explains the "welfare cases" issue, which I think is a red herring. (5) everyone except Trump said that it was a victory for the government.

I lived in New York City during that time. It was a major story. Now it's become a major story again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
By Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post
January 23, 2016

NEW YORK — When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments.

The two would-be renters on that July 1972 day were actually undercover “testers” for a ­government-sanctioned investigation.... Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as “No. 9” and “C” for “colored,” according to government interview accounts filed in federal court....

The case, one of the biggest federal housing discrimination suits to be brought during that time...

The 20-month legal battle marked the first time Trump became a regular presence on newspaper front pages. It served as an early look at the hardball tactics he has employed in business and, more recently, in politics. And its resolution showed how Trump, even in the heat of battle, is often willing to strike a deal.

This account is based on a review of more than 1,000 pages of court records ....

the racial coding allegations, gained notice in a 1979 Village Voice investigation and more recently in a Daily Beast story....

“The idea of settling drove me crazy,” he wrote in “The Art of the Deal.”

“What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,” Trump wrote in his 1987 autobiography. “I’d rather fight than fold, because as soon as you fold once, you get the reputation of being a folder.”

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.”

Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

Goldweber, the Justice lawyer who originally argued the case, said it was a clear government victory.

--Nbauman (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

New speech, new lead

There current lead seems to have a lot of issues. It reads:

Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)

The amount of quotation marks is disturbing. The current lead implies that NAFTA and TPP are "unfair", which many disagree on, Trump's immigration policies are "real", which is very debatable, and Trump is the "law and order" candidate, when he's been wanting to punch protesters at his rallies. Just because the the "words" "are" "in" "quotation marks", doesn't mean the ambiguity and misleadingness has disappeared. Also, no mention of ISIS, which has been a major part of his campaign for a long time. What in the world is a scrapped proposal doing in the lead. The Muslim ban has long been banned, why is it even mentioned in the lead if it's not what Trump is leading on now? It makes no sense. "Vetting mechanisms" is a complicated term, we must follow the Wikipedia policies and use terms that it is at least mostly understandable. Also "tax cuts" is insanely low-info and shouldn't even be included. I propose this:

His platform includes combatting illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, reforming healthcare by replacing the Affordable Care Act, rebuilding the U.S. military while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

It's not perfect, I know. And please don't be rude and attack me. But could we at least work together on changing the lead from here as the current one has many issues. Thanks! ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion above, I have proposed a revision of the consensus version that responds to many of the issues you have a problem with. Take a look at it, and please respond there so that the discussion stays all in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for content to be included in the lede

I've edited the "Political positions of Donald Trump" for some time now. This is the kind of content I'd like to see included in the "political positions" part of the lede to this wikipedia page. I've divided them up into "natural categories" (immigration, economy, social issues, energy/environment, foreign policy) for clarity and the correct weight:

  • Trump's "signature issue" is illegal immigration, in particular building a wall on the border with Mexico and the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Having early in his campaign advocated a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration, Trump has reformulated the ban so that it would be geographical, not religious, to apply to “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.”"
  • Trump's signature economic policies are the raising of tariffs on China and Mexio, across-the-board tax cuts, the dismantling of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), and opposition to changing entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
  • He is pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage and has called for revoking an IRS rule that prohibits tax-exempted Churches and other non-profits from campaigning on behalf of candidates.
  • Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and promotes greater use of fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation.
  • He supports increasing U.S. military defense spending, has at various times said he favored and opposed sending US ground forces to defeat the Islamic State, and calls for the resumption of waterboarding. Trump proposes to renegotiate NATO and the WTO; leaving the organizations unless changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talkcontribs)
Thanks for this. Offhand reaction: This is way to much to go in the lede, which can include only a few points that can be stated in a sentence or two. (That's the nature of the lede.) In the current proposal, we already have the wall and the immigration limits. We have tax cuts and repeal of ACA. "Opposition to changing SS and Mcare" depends on when he is talking and what your definitions are; he does seem to oppose the usual Republican position of cutting or privatizing them. Likewise he doesn't talk a whole lot about Dodd-Frank and CPA. Pro-life and same-sex marriage are routine for all Republicans, not worthy of mention in the lede. Likewise the climate change and regulation points. He did make quite a point in his nomination speech about the "Free the pulpit" thing, maybe we could add that because we haven't heard a lot about it from other candidates. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that if anything has to go, it's Dodd-Frank and CPA first. "He is pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage" is short enough not to took up too much stuff. He's talked a lot about reducing environmental regulations, so while the sentence can be trimmed, I think it's noteworthy enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we can fit most of it in if we use concise language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Melanie's points above. I think the current language that's being formulated in the discussions above reasonably represents his political positions for the lede. I'm concerned that adding more would become undue.CFredkin (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand the concerns but think the existing lede could be trimmed for the sake of more of his political beliefs (I understand if not all of the content I mentioned could be included). The existing positions that are mentioned could be trimmed some, and lines such as "Trump's presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention." and "with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." could be deleted IMO. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
IMO those passages are more important than platform details, which are spelled out in great detail in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it weird to specifically mention that a presidential campaign receives media coverage and int attention? While I do consider it true that Trump has gotten 2008 Obama-like coverage and attention, it doesn't feel important enough for a lede, especially when core issues like wanting to abolish/renegotiate NATO, WTP and raise tariffs are not mentioned (things that go against bipartisan consensus, has global implications and gets plenty of attention). The protests/riots feel a bit passe in my view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Support Snooganssnoogans's proposal that this passage be deleted: "Trump's presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention". (The information has now become so self-evident that continuing to include it the lead could be perceived by at least some readers as an insult to their awareness.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Snooganssnoogans's suggested draft, which seems somewhat divorced from the widely circulated mainstream sources that purport to provide concise well-balanced compilations of Trump's most important positions. Perhaps we should try to limit our discussion to those items that are listed in at least two such compilations, as published in mainstream sources that all editors are willing to acknowledge as high quality (BBC News, for example). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you link to a few of those compilations of views? I'm convinced that my first bullet point would be mentioned in every compilation, as would tariffs on China and Mexio from BP2, bringing back torture (final BP) and his comment about targeting terrorists' families (which I did not put in my BPs), and abolishing/renegotiating NATO in the final BP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
So far I've found only two relatively current compilations:
1. Financial Times, Donald Trump promises security and prosperity as US president. "Mr Trump repeated many of the themes that have driven his populist campaign: illegal immigration, global trade, corporate corruption, violence towards police officers, and the rise of radical Islamist terrorism."
2. BBC News, US Election: What would a Donald Trump presidency look like?. "Here are five policy areas where Mr Trump has bucked the Republican line. Gay rights ... National security ... Immigration ... Trade ... Foreign policy ..."
Reuters recently published a limited compilation. The writers mentioned their frustration with the task. As Republicans anoint Trump, party grapples with identity crisis. "His speech ... offered scant detail... He wants to ... in some cases block [trade deals] altogether, like [the] Trans-Pacific Partnership... [He's made a] vow to deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants."
But here are some other pre-eminent, widely circulated publications and newswire services: NYTimes.com, WSJ.com, Time.com, and BigStory.AP.org. (Unlike the Guardian, Washington Post, FOX, CNN, and such, they're marketing themselves to a world audience rather than a particular demographic, and they're known to have the financial resources needed to pay for top-quality journalists and fact-checkers.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Long list of sources

Reddit contributors have compiled this list of press coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Confused by ThiefofBaghdad's lede edits

ThiefofBaghdad re-wrote the lede without consensus (and with several users expressing concerns about his/her wording of the lede). The user then asked other users to edit it as they saw fit, which I did (though I noted in my explanation that we ought to wait for a mandate from the talk page) and which ThiefofBaghdad reacted very strongly to. This is my version:

  • Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, repeatedly asserting that crime is rising and proposing the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration. He favors increasing U.S. defense spending and stepping up military actions against ISIS through the use of ground troops and resumption of waterboarding. He proposes to temporarily suspend immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism (a modification of an earlier proposal to suspend Muslim immigration). He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, and proposes an increase in tariffs on China and Mexico. Trump proposes to renegotiate NATO and the WTO; leaving the organizations unless changes are made. He calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes across-the-board tax reductions.

This is ThiefofBaghdad's:

  • Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and efforts to subdue Islamic terrorism by sending military troops to defeat ISIS, increasing U.S. defense spending, and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions.

I believe my version is superior: more clarity in the proposals Trump's made + mentioning very important issues that get a lot of attention, go against bipartisan consensus and have global implication (renegotiating/leaving NATO, WTO) + mentions the Muslim ban that he sort of came to fame with. I look forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Feedbacks on your text: "Repeatedly asserting" where? Not in rallies or his website. Only his RNC speech. He favors moderizing U.S. military not just "increading spending". He acknowledged in interview when asked that U.S. ground troups will eventually be necessary to defeat ISIS, your text saying he "favors" is unclear and perhaps misleading. His preference to bring back waterboarding if legal to do so, isn't part of "stepping up military actions against ISIS". He made it clear the temporary immigration ban was specifically not a "proposal" but a suggestion. He proposes renegotiation of China trade agreement, you've reduced that to one possibile/partial step of "increasing tariffs". (And why is Mexico included in that, when Trump usually always mentions Japan and Vietnam and South Korea along with naming Mexico trade imbalance.) Re NATO, "unless changes are made" is unnecessary abstraction, probably caused by combining NATO and WTO, which have different issues, in one sentence. (Re NATO, Trump has consistently stated that member countries must do their part and "pay their fair share".) Trump has said that leaving those organizations must always be on the table, your text could be construed to say he has named his conditions and threatens to leave if not met. Ok, IHTS (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to IHTS, these are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention.

Crime is rising:

  • June 2016: www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/
  • July 2016: www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752834632907943936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
  • RNC speech

Increase spending on military:

  • Trump stated that he "would increase [spending] on the military” www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/03/09/hannity-on-road-donald-trump/

Send ground troops:

  • I think it’s right to skip this one (it was part of ThiefofBaghdad’s new lede version, so I just rephrased and kept it in), as Trump has distanced himself from this idea now.

Waterboarding:

  • It’s a major part of his campaign. It’s part of his campaign to stop ISIS (put in that context by him).

Muslim/territorial ban:

  • Trump only claimed that it was a suggestion after changing his proposal. He issued a a December press release "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. That’s not an off-hand remark, that’s a proposal.

China tariffs:

  • In January 2016, Trump proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States to give "American workers a level playing field.” www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/

Mexico tariffs:

  • Trump has vowed to impose tariffs — in the range of 15 to 35 percent — on companies that move their operations to Mexico. thehill.com/policy/finance/289005-trump-suggests-leaving-wto-over-import-tax-proposal

NATO:

  • Trump was vague prior to July but Factcheck.org interpreted his collection of statements to mean that might be willing to leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance. www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/
  • When asked in July about a prospective Russia attack on NATO's Baltic members, Trump stated that would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations "have fulfilled their obligations to us.” This means that Trump won’t uphold the security guarantees in NATO unless some unspecified obligations are met (as it stands, NATO is based on automatic security guarantees). www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html
  • My text doesn’t imply that he has made specific demands (because he hasn’t), he has threatened to not uphold the treaty. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


All your listings document some thing, but not what I offered in my feedbacks. You're not reading for meaning, you're pushing your slanted text. You allowed less than 1 hour discussion then posted your rewrite [16]. You've been reverted to earlier version that at least had some consensus per MelanieN. IHTS (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Those are point-by-point responses to some of your assertions. I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second last sentence. Thief edited and encouraged others to "feel free to be bold (Wiki policy) and make changes where needed". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Add back IPA?

I want to see if I can get consensus for adding back the english IPA.

It would look like Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld ˈɒn ˈtrəmp/; born June 14, 1946)

instead of Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946)

Henry TALK 02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks to me like unhelpful LEADCLUTTER. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump doesn't need a IPA. Adding once would be redundant since the subject in question is a person. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Change image

Donald Trump
Trump at lectern before backdrop with elements of logo "TRUMP DonaldJTrump.com"
Trump in 2013
Born Donald John Trump
(1946-06-14) June 14, 1946 (age 70)
Queens, New York City, U.S.


I know, I know, this isn't the first time someone here has complained about the current image (but that already says a lot about how unfit the current picture might be). Trump looks so presidential and professional in this picture, and he hasn't gone through some kind of major change in looks that a picture from 2013 somehow isn't applicable anymore. Here, he looks a lot more natural, and he is looking clearly into one direction and not crossing his eyes somewhere else like in the current one. What do you guys think of using this picture instead of the current one? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the current image. YoPienso (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This particular picture was suggested and rejected (along with 20 others) in several discussions during the primaries. WP:DEADHORSE issue. — JFG talk 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And to offer a rationale, this one is unflattering--he looks like he just drank lemon juice. The current one is a very typical look of his and quite neutral, neither flattering nor unflattering, just real. YoPienso (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)