Talk:Donald Trump

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

Current consensuses and RfCs

Current consensuses:

NOTE: Reverts to consensuses listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs]], item [n].

1. Use File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg as the infobox image until the official White House portrait becomes available. (link)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. Lead phrasing of Trump gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College and receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide, without quoting numbers. (link, link 2)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value of $4.5 billion, and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (2016 edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

6. Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn. (link)

7. Include "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false." in the lead. (link)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected without prior military or governmental service. (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children. The link redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link, link 2)

Open RfCs:

• #RfC on including "false" in the lede
• #RfC: Adding Trump Organization leadership onto non-officeholder template?
• #RfC: Election summary in the lede

RfC on including "false" in the lede

The current wording has been in the lede since September and was based on this RfC: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 26#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Recent discussion here has suggested it may be time to take another look at that wording. Based on that discussion I propose four options. (The number of references may be excessive; that could be trimmed before putting it into the article.) MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Options

Option 1: Keep the existing wording:

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

Option 2: Remove "false" from the existing wording.

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial.

Option 3: Proposed new wording:

Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false.

Option 4: Same as proposed new wording #3, but with an additional sentence (proposing two versions, exact wording to be worked out if this option is chosen):

4_A. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate.

4_B. Along with his existing status as a celebrity, such statements resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate."^{(Added Dec.15th)}

Option 5:

Trump made false statements 78% of the time according to the Washington Post. (see Washington Post reference listed in the box below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamen1 (talk • contribs)

Option 6: NEW Same as #1, but with attribution (non-WikiVoice) due to the generalization and quantification:

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies have been characterized as controversial or false.

NEW

Late addition: Option 1A

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

Late addition: Option 1B

Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false but those news sources do not accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial or false statements.

Option 1B is to provide context and because I believe Wikipedia editors may be trying to make that inference. There could be an option 1C that adds "but those news sources also accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial and false statements" but I don't know if that is true. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Survey

You can comment briefly on each option if you wish, such as "prefer option #X", "option #X is acceptable", "Oppose option #X". Threaded discussion should go in the next section for ease of reading.

• Option #1 as that best fits WP:NPOV since multiple high quality WP:RS reflect that view. We can cobble at least a dozen sources to support this. Would compromise with option #3 if necessary, but the excessive wordiness and qualifications seems too much. Strong oppose to #2 as it is, at best, incomplete. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think the word "false" may well be excessive, as to declare something "false" means, more or less, that the person/entity doing the review made a thorough review of all relevant facts and determined that the claims were, in fact, false. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases of politics, it isn't the case that all relevant facts are necessarily always available. I might also support option 3, if perhaps the word "false" were changed to "unsupported," which I think is probably a more accurate description of the conclusions of the reviews which have been made. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: The phrasing of option 3 is unfortunately, vague. "...and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" leaves open exactly what are we comparing, and would be improved by saying something like "compared to the statements of other candidates," or "compared to those of other candidates," or similar. 4, being dependent on 3, I can't support based on problems with 3. 6 might work, but might need some clarification that it is referring to statements he made in the campaign, unless data as it comes in supports that his accuracy remains as weak as it had been during the period between the election and being swore in and, possibly, in office. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option #1 - as EvergreenFir said, this is amply supported by multiple, high-quality, reliable-sources, and is extremely important in the context of Trump's career. The historic significance is underscored by the large number of sources describing the level and consistency of the false statements as unprecedented. To omit it would be extremely misguided. Like EF, I would compromise with Option #3 if necessary, but it is needlessly wordy. I strongly oppose #2. Neutrality^talk 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #3 because we need to have a neutral tone. Alternatively, I wonder if an alternative to "false" could be found that better describes the issue, e.g., "unsubstantiated".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #4 I think we should mention that they are false, as it is non a violation of neutrality policies if they are. However I do agree with that should have the extra sentence to clarify why it happened, but I believe it could be more concisely written as Partly as a result of his existing celebrity status and not as Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity which was proposed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 It is what it is, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't need to hide or obscure this important fact with weasel words. I acknowledge John Carter's point that some of what Trump has said (and the subsequent fact checking) is open to interpretation but there's a sufficient number of unequivocal, blatant falsehoods to warrant the current wording with no fear of bias. WaggersTALK 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 Backed up by multiple WP:RS and WP:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 This would seem pretty straightforward. Not only is it amply supported by reliable sources, but also it has been a relatively stable sentence in a contentious article for over two months. For editors concerned with the word "false", perhaps it might be better to rewrite the sentence to instead use "falsehoods" (a common word used by fact-checking organizations). Arguments for removing "false" are pretty absurd. Multiple reliable sources over a long period support the position that Donald Trump lies on a regular basis, so I would say it is a kindness to Trump to say that many of his statements are "false" or "falsehoods" when it is clearly understating the egregiousness of his legendary mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  It's only been stable because we're not allowed to change it. I'd be edit warring right now if it wouldn't result in a ban. Morphh ^(talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option #1 That's what the RSs say. Objective3000 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 per all of the above except the "not censored" part. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED as I understand it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #3 per WP:DUE. Substantially the same as #1, but clearer. I think most readers understand that the major fact-checkers are as close to Objective Truth as we ever get, so this is not the usual attribution as "someone's opinion". They understand that those evaluations are the results of reasonably rigorous research, and that they haven't survived as major fact-checkers without fairly good track records for accuracy. Option #3 tells the reader where we got our information, and that this is not merely the consensus view of a group of Wikipedia editors. Further, the words "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" are important. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Prefer #4_B/4_A + #3, would accept #3 alone however... against #2 as whitewash, against #1 as logically a sin of false numerical equivalence, #6 is a slight improvement, #5 is good faith but suffers from over-specificity and selection bias. The fundamental bug in option#1 is that is says "many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" which can logically be simplified to say "many of his statements were false". The problem is not the word 'false' here, that is not disputed, the problem is the word 'many'. Compared to what? Compared to other candidates? Compared to the 1804 election when candidates were accused of being satanists? According to whom? WaPo? Rival candidates for the Republican nomination? Too many questions here. Option#2 avoids the problem, by keeping 'many' but removing 'false'. Option#4-and-#3 attempts to solve the problem, by splitting 'many...controversial' away from the 'some...false' language, which is an improvement. It is still weasel-words, but it is no longer as biased. It is hard to argue that Trump never said any outright false things, or against their being relatively enough of them that it deserves mention in the lead-paragraphs. It is *also* hard to argue that he said an EQUAL NUMBER of controversial things, as the number of things he said that were outright false; practically every single thing he said was controversial to somebody, whereas the things he said that were false did not rise to *quite* such quantitative heights. Option#1 conflates two things together, and omits that they are substantively distinct in quality AND quantity. To be crystal clear, I do not particularly care if 'some...false' is the qualifier used. I would also be happy with 'many...controversial' followed by 'an unprecedentedly vast number of...false' statements, because that gives the flavor of what we are talking about here. Trump is much more controversial than other candidates, and also much more prone to falsehoods than other candidates, not just in 2016 but in the past N generations. But it is unfair to paint his quantity of falsehoods, as being equal in number to his quantity of controversial statements. That is what option#1 does, and what option#3 (plus #4) attempts to correct. I consider this to be a question of following the WP:Accuracy_dispute guideline. Like the comment by EvergreenFir and Neutrality mention, I am happy to see the wordy choices of "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" be cut down, and I see little wrong with saying "a relatively large number of falsehoods". Or taking a cue from John Carter, "a relatively large number of unsupported statements and outright falsehoods." But the key word is 'relatively' here, and the key structural change is splitting 'false' away from 'many...controversial' as used in the just-prior sentence-clause. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated to cover #4_B, #5, and #6 (see insertions above). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) ...oppose #1_B since it is just flat inaccurate, #1C is not an improvement because it begs the question of why the differential happened and says nothing about the steepness of the differential, plus is probably undue weight since it was Trump-versus-other-repubs for the majority of his campaign June 2015 to May 2016 and only a two-way campaign after Sanders suspended, aka June 2016 to early November 2016. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option #6 (just added), but could agree to Option 3 and 4. Would also be fine with including fact checker attribution to 6 and I'm fine with alternative terms to false. Added a new option 6, because I didn't like any of the others. We can't leave #1 because it's in WikiVoice and the generalization of the body of statements and the selective assessment of statements is someone's judgement, which makes it subjective. It needs to be attributed outside of WikiVoice Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1, seeing as nothing seems to have changed regarding its validity. Oppose #2 strongly unless someone can demonstrate that the veracity of his statements has changed; if it hasn't WP:DUE requires the inclusion of the material. The "reference frame" of NPOV compliance (=when an article is neutral) is set by reliable sources, not by some kind of "balance". About #3, it seemed to me that the veracity of claims is based on comparing the number of falsehoods to the total amount of claims checked, not necessarily between candidates. #4 is claiming that the large number of falsehoods in his claims is merely a matter of the base rate fallacy, in these terms - if nobody can substantiate that the base rate fallacy is indeed the reason why so many of his statements have been deemed false, oppose #4 as a misrepresentation. #5 seems like it may run afoul of WP:UNDUE unless that percentage - and only that percentage - is discussed by many other sources. About #6, I don't think the comments on the veracity of his statements fall under the scope of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at all. And if memory serves, when people talk about Trump's statements being often incorrect they are talking about the statements being incorrect, not just about people calling them incorrect. So unless that memory is incorrect, oppose #6 as well as a misrepresentation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #6. Not #1. Historical note: Trump purposely made many statements that were false, outlandish, and offensive so as to divert Clinton into focusing her campaign message on his temperament rather than on economic change, causing her to lose the Rust Belt. Michael Scherer, "Donald Trump: The Person of the Year", Time, December 19, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #1 because it's true and not any less neutral than the other options. However, I would accept option #2 as well because "controversial" can encompass the falsehood of many of his statements in his campaign. κατάσταση 04:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Though option 6 would also handle the statement being too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact -- which does not fit with WP:V where support is Op-Ed viewpoint expressions. Actually my impression was that Hillary was the one more characterized as 'deceptive' and that Trump was more 'controversial or offensive' (and sometimes just called nuts). Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 and don't really think this RfC is warranted since we already had one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is certainly well-sourced and the mainstream media agrees fully, which is how Wikipedia works. Plus, it highlights for the reader and draws Attention with a capital 'A' to the in general political sensibilities of Wikipedia editors, their consensus and their completely understandable animosity towards pretty much everything Trump says. Although we cannot explicitly alert the reader to the nature of Wikipedia consensus and how it is reflected in political articles, indirect indications such as this will suffice as an alternative and serve a useful purpose. Marteau (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1, largely per EvergreenFir. Option 3 is not terrible, but it's wordy and amounts to putting the source into the sentence, which shouldn't be necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• not option 4 Due to the heated nature of this talk page, I am now limiting comments only to the first 1-2 sentences of the lede except I am making a small exception. Option 4 raises issues that appear to be opinion. That is not to say that other options contain opinion but attention was given to other non-celebrity candidates. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - It's is not our role to call out things as "false" or "true", it's not even for us to say that things are "controversial". These are opinions, and carry that kind of weight when we use those phrases. We can point out that people disagree with Donald Trump or have made claims to the contrary of what he has said, but any phrasing such as the words I put in quotes denotes a kind of opinion, a choosing of sides as to who is right and who is wrong. Even Hitler's Wikipedia page introduction does not use the word "controversial" to describe him, it relies on facts of what was done and by whom and to whom. Simply say that people disagree with Donald Trump and have opposed him, and have done with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option Zero – Remove the sentence entirely. Given the walls of text consumed in this new debate as well as in prior ones, this sentence looks irremediably flawed. The article text in the campaign section accurately explains his way of speaking, the exaggerations and untruths, the findings from fact-checkers and the impact of this unprecedented approach on Trump's coverage, with the New York Times going so far as admitting to drop "normal" journalism ethics because Trump's campaign was "not normal". I have not seen a proposal yet which would accurately reflect this part of the article contents in the lead section, as we should. Instead, we've got this blanket characterization that "many statements were false" backed by 5 different citations (as if we have to prove it to readers) and no space for a finer analysis. Yes, Trump says weird things, which contributed to his popularity and his eventual election, but also to the backlash against him. No, his words should not be taken literally, and Wikipedia should not fuel the fire of controversy. — JFG ^talk 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1/4: Preferably without "controversial", as that is a separate issue which is harder to quantify objectively - i.e., something like "He frequently made false statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate." zzz (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 is my preference, Option 3 is also fine. I don't much care for #1 (because it generates too much argument) or #6 (we don't have to soften "controversial" by saying "characterized as", everybody agrees his statements were and are controversial), and I oppose #2 (because it omits "false") and #5 (inappropriate for the lede). --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4B - This wording contrasts Trump with other politicians in the past and explains why his "False" statements are important. By leaving "Opinion 1", it creates an illusion that Trump is the only candidate who had said controversial and/or false statements. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 as the term "false" as it used is POV. The fact that we even have this discussion points out that "false" is not unequivocal. It is by definition, therefore, a non-neutral POV. That cannot be erased by how passionately people hold that view so it needs to be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 as it is concise and accurately states what fact checkers and major RS have said. Strong Oppose to Option 2 as it is misleading and post-factual.Daaxix (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4. Option 1; WP:DUE. Option 5 is inappropriate, Option 6; same reason as Option 1. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option #2 or just remove that line totally. Something like this would never get into obama's page that he lied about obamacare. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/) KMilos (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:OTHERSTUFF. !Votes which are not based on policy but merely personal preferences are appropriately discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a relevant example of Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS that Obama's "Lie of the Year" award would never be mentioned in his BLP. Why not hold all BLPs to the same standard?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• 2 or 6. Saying that a lot of his statements were controversial already strongly implies that the statements were considered by many people to include false material. But if we keep "false" in the lead, it should not be in wikivoice (even better than that would be to replace the controversial word "false" with a specific example or two of his most egregious falsities).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• 1, supported by reliable sources, no need to sugar-coat it. 201.27.125.81 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The preponderance of sources have not backtracked on their original reporting and fact checking in which they concluded that Trump has made many false statements. In the original RfC, fully 33 editors supported the current wording, and their arguments were seen to have more weight than the 21 who opposed it, by a large margin. The only thing that has changed since September is that Trump is now the President-elect. That fact does not change anything about how we should describe the conclusions reached by numerous reputable sources. Sources continue to amplify the fact that Trump "has little regard for the facts" [1]; that he continues to make false statements [2][3][4]; and in opinions expressed in reputable publications, that he outright lies.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Our responsibility to our readership is to present unvarnished, verifiable facts without sweetening their meaning with euphemisms (option 2), and word salads and equivocation (options 3, 4, and 6). It's ironic that our definition of reliable sources is based on reputation for fact checking and accuracy, yet while no one has challenged the reliability of these many available sources, they still express doubt that the sources actually checked facts. Astonishing.- MrX 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 This is a declamatory statement of mainstream-documented fact. False is a factual statement, not a moral judgment. It's not clear why we are revisiting this, and I hope we don't make a habit of it. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 3, both are well referenced and well documented and matter of fact and satisfy WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - existing wording is concise and accurate. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 If people are uncomfortable with the word 'false," they should take issue with the source of the statements, not dissemble reality to suit their comfort levels. RL have been overwhelmingly clear in documenting the atomic basis of Trump's many lies. This wording wouldn't even be controversial hadn't he become a politician and improbably enough, the presumed president elect. (I'm user AgentOrangeTabby, but can't reset my PW right now). 71.91.30.188 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 or remove entirely. Unnecessary non-neutral commentary, exists only to poison the well. -70.162.247.233 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• None; my thoughts mirror JFG's almost to the word. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Concise, supported by reliable sources, and gives WP:DUE weight reflecting the relative importance of this topic. Option 2 and 6 are acceptable, but I still favor Option 1. Options 3-5 are too lengthy for the lead. If we cannot reach consensus, then I would also be fine with removing the sentence entirely. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 There is no question about this. There has already been plenty of discussion about this and the previous RFC. Cited from multiple RS, obvious, factual. Do I really need to go into detail here? It's the truth and we don't need to whitewash it. Centerone (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is a POV violation that, even if it may be true, could go in the header of any politician's article, such as other 2016 US election candidates, yet Trump's is the only one that has it. --Baladoxox (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 (See comments below): It should not be in the lead while not covered in the body of the article, or at least linked to, and None of the above is not an actual option. Because of fact that, "Trump made controversial statements that have been attributed to falsehoods.", it should be covered in this article, just not using the word "Many". Apparently #1 is the consensus choice but only until another RFC that will eventually come to pass. Using this sentence in the WP:Lead section ("Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), is controversial. What are we using as justification that it is a "basic fact" for inclusion in the lead only? There are a multitude of reasonings (policies and guidelines) against using the apparent editorial consensus wording "Many/many", and WP:Bias is only one. Even "IF" there are 560 (I consider this "MANY") false statements (from a source), using "Many" would beg someone to count (certainly tag the word) how many statements he made overall, to quantify "Many". There is reason to question five references (this is a WP:BLP) as being "many", because even fifty references, (out of how many references concerning statements he made?) is considered subjective. Why do we need it in the lead at all? Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Otr500: Seems to me you are really advocating "option zero" to remove this sentence entirely from the lead, unless a lot more of Trump's discourse evaluation is included in the article. As I noted earlier, the text we have in the article is much more nuanced than the lead sentence, however most editors don't seem to mind the discrepancy. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

One would think it would be a given, content not being in the lead (option zero) not covered in the article. Since that option is not on the table, likely from the previous discussion(s), it is apparent editors want it included. At least one editor correctly but unsuccessfully argued my point, that content, especially when controversial, should not be in the lead when not in the body of the article. I think that consensus, or WP:IAR should be examined very closely concerning this and it "should be" far more critical concerning a WP:BLP. It is my opinion that any previous talks, especially when covered by DS, should be decided erring towards full BLP protection. That does not appear to be the case here, and I was not involved in previous discussions. IF we use IAR as reasoning, that it is to make article improvements, then I would think we are sliding down a slope that consensus trumps policies and guidelines, because exceptions can be used as reasoning. Problems are that, 1)- this is a high profile BLP, 2)- certainly controversial and, 3)- covered under WMF madates subject to DS. This would seem to be enough reasoning that these discussions should have been moot yet here we are. In light of this, I suppose, we are left with capitulation and collaboration, at least until others deem it expediant to "follow the rules".

That content has been allowed in the lead (not covered in the article), by silence, it would seem, would not matter when such content is contested with valid reasoning including policies and guidelines. Since none of the above matters I argue that we should try to make any editorial violations worded as best as possible realizing that consensus can change. The word "Most" (editors) is a lot like "Many" (sources) and subject to vague interpretaion. I suppose I missed being placed in the field with "most" other editors. I just don't understand why something as relevant as up to 560 "lies", "falsehoods", or whatever we choose to call them, are not important to be in the article but "MUST" be included in the lead, and it is so important it has to be in the third paragraph above Trump won the general election.

Anyway, you guys have fun with this. I think I am going to bow out and go visit some of the other 5 or 6 million articles where, if nothing else, common sense might have a better chance of prevailing Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the only neutral-point-of-view option. The other options are all clear non-neutral point-of-view pushing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1A is the best option in that it is NPOV, supported by sources, and appropriate given the remarkable underlying events. Oppose option 2 as blurring the lines between this and other situations, which the sources make clear is not appropriate. Oppose option 3 as kinda creating a weasel-wordish, primary-research-ish count comparison; also "fact-checking services" rings strange as a subtype of sources, appearing in the encyclopedic voice. Strongly oppose options 4a and 4b as conflating a couple of different parts of the narrative of the election with this issue; also, not sure it is a consensus in the sources. Oppose option 5 as undue weight on a single source and the oddly specific statistic from the source. Strongly oppose late addition Option 1B as strange and unclear -- it sounds like the encyclopedic voice may be accusing the sources of bias for not having done so, which I think is the opposite of the author's intention; also, original-research-ish. Option 6 is least objectionable, but significantly inferior to option 1A since the relevant fact is that, unlike other candidates who are accused by others of saying false and false-ish things, this candidate has said multiple things that were flatly false. (Summoned by bot.) Chris vLS (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Irrespective of references, "false" inevitably reads like the judgement or opinion of the person who wrote the article. For this reason, wording such as "were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" is preferable. 109.146.248.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we take this as a comment in favor of option 3? --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I interpret it as meaning "definitely against option#1" with some implied lean towards #3, but they might also be happy with #4 or #5 (they don't say). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion – RfCs with several options to choose from rarely end up with a convincing consensus. I would suggest proposing only one variant. Alternately, a more elegant solution might be to remove the iron-clad "this wording has consensus" notice in the code, as it refers to a campaign-time RfC and it is obvious from the discussion above that consensus has changed to a point where there is literally neither consensus today for that wording nor against it. Hence I would suggest closing this RfC as an inefficient process and just let editors play with the wording as they please. Sure, there might be some warring but there also might emerge some creative solution acceptable by most editors. — JFG ^talk 07:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  I agree that it's going to be difficult for a new consensus to emerge with a multiple choice RfC, but has the past has shown us, editors frequently make ad hoc proposals in RfCs anyway. I firmly disagree with letting editors play with the wording, given how difficult it was to arrive at the current consensus, and the recent influx of WP:SPA and sockpuppet accounts.- MrX 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  Agree with MrX. Something this contentious needs the structure and order of the RfC process, and letting editors play with the content often results in the content being determined by those with the most endurance, not a good way to determine content. If the RfC could be better framed, start over and reframe it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, to abandon any consensus version and just let editors "play with the wording as they please" would be incompatible with the Discretionary Sanctions in effect at this page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the RfC being held is just fine, although the outcome will be ambiguous (because people will leave short comments only giving their opinion on one aspect). Once this RfC is over, rather than implementing immediately whatever the closer believes was the outcome, it might be a good idea to do as JFG suggests, and have a yes-or-no type of RfC on whatever language is the "winner" from this multi-choice RfC process. We may end up with option#1 being the winner from this discussion, and then have a yes-or-no discussion about whether option#1 is still the consensus... and if *that* future discussion ends in no consensus for change, well then, in some ways we wasted our time. But simply having the shortlist of four (or five) options, that THIS current RfC has formulated, is itself helpful; it narrows down the problems people have with the extant September-consensus wording. Which will be useful a year from now, when and if this comes up again. Nobody said wikipedia is an efficient process! JFG should know that from participating in earlier talkpage discussions here.  :-) Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere - Yes, and that's even without requiring separate debates about whether a consensus is in fact a consensus. That's probably why that is never done (to my finite knowledge, that is). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes 47.222.203.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I know it all too well, that's part of the charm of this project… Believe it or not, some topics are thornier than Trumpianisms. The epic New York titling debates of 2002–2016 last resulted in "no consensus on whether we have consensus to agree that there is no consensus". For your entertainment: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it has been done at least once. Short of spending hours researching that at my slow reading speed, it looks to me like certain editors' disruptive refusal to accept a legitimate uninvolved close because it didn't go their way. The solution is policy that forbids that, while providing some recourse to deal with editors who show a lack of competence to close complex debates (that doesn't appear to be the case there). It is axiomatic (but invisible to many) that inadequate process rules result in monumental time sinks around relatively unimportant issues like the title of a single article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree - don't like how it was set up. It guarantees that it stays the same. I added Option 6, but not sure if it's too late for people to review it. The problem with current wording should have been laid out as you can see, people are just going to say it's supported by multiple RS without seeing the problem that the current wording violates NPOV and BLP. Morphh ^(talk) 21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• About the "option 5" proposal, to cite a percentage of false statements given by one source: I think that is appropriate for the article text but not for the lede. The reason for having it in the lede is that it has been WIDELY reported, by many sources with different numerical results, but the common conclusion that the number of false statements is unusually high compared to other politicians. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• There have been suggestions to replace "false" with "unsupported" or "unsubstantiated". That would misrepresent the sources, which evaluated his false claims by the "pants on fire" standard, meaning provably false - as when he denied ever having said something that he clearly did say. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the problem altogether with this RFC. The problem wasn't the word false, it was the use of WikiVoice and quantifying it with a weasel word "many", then applying it to a generalization. As many have said, the RS support that he made false statements. That's not the problem with the sentence. It's taking a judgement about those cherry picked statements and stating as fact a generalization. Morphh ^(talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure if I need to point this out, but the sources used as RS are media organizations that openly supported Clinton. And there are plenty of sources with Trump's team calling them dishonest. So it adds an additional POV element to it and I think !votes that say "the sentence is supported by the RS" should be measured when we're talking about stating this in WikiVoice. Morphh ^(talk) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I look forward to your providing equally research-based reports from independent reliable sources demonstrating that Trump did NOT, in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest. ("Trump's team" doesn't count. They are neither independent nor reliable. Of COURSE they disagree - what would you expect them to do?) As for the editorial position taken by the papers, that's irrelevant - as long as they are sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence of the news/reporting side from the editorial/opinion side. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • MelanieN well, you could perhaps visit the Fox fact checker, but really the 'fact-checkers' are just not the level of normal journalism reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence you seem to think, they are just Op-Eds from external writers to the paper for example Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton. It's an innovative serial format to make use of web journalism, and perhaps worthy to have regular sniping at politician blurbs besides SNL, and for WP use may have WP:WEIGHT of prominence. But it's not due for much more credence and there are enough criticisms on the web about bias and folks taking this too seriously somewhat mentioned at Fact checking. There's just no overall evaluation, or consistent stated basis of evaluation or even of which statements to pick -- it's apparently just whatever of the copious choices spouted that a writer thought most entertaining to review and if it's not badly written ranting or making stuff up it might go forward. I don't even have to go into the fine difference between 'fact', 'evidence' and 'truth' here -- I just have to point to RS sections on WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, fact checkers are NOT "Op-Eds". Sort of the opposite in fact. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how we approach sources. Also, this "Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton" is just ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that we should judge the reliability of sources based on what state/area they're located in? Might want to re-read WP:RSN. In light of such comments your !vote should be appropriately discounted since it is based on complete ignorance of policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek I'll respond in some detail. Fact checkers are opinion articles that should follow guidelines according to my cited WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG. I'm pointing out that stating this line as an article opinion (or else not having the word inquestion) would be more faithful to the WP guidelines and faithfully setting out the cites and that it is only a particular kind of cite involved. Particularly applicable of WP:NEWSORG I think are the bits

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. "

"Whether a 'specific' news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

"One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."

And as an opinion of statements the WP:RS section WP:BIASED also applies, note particularly "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." and "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source."

• For the Washington Post ... allegations of it as biased or part of general media bias has been mentioned in prominent places such as Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal_bias and MediaMatters.org, so regardless of what you or I may feel, the WP:BIASED guide says to attribute the statement. It seems loosely credible -- the paper is writing from a DC-located viewpoint, has an editorial board that endorsed Clinton including with statements like Trump was "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America's enemies," and said if he's elected president, "he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world" here. Though the paper also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies. (Being a DC paper, perhaps critiquing her skill relative to the rest of DC rather than condemning it ? ;-) )
• The Washington post fact-checker series associated to the paper differs from say the Politifact in that it's a 2-reporter series with a link for outsiders to provide topic suggestions that they pick at will from, includes numerous unrated articles and sort of public information items ('guide to detecting fake news', 'everything you need to know about obamacare', 'what may come up in the debate', etcetera). What they say about how they try to run it is as a 'reasonable person' feeling. They also state that differences in coverage for Trump versus Clinton do exist, with more looking at him since he said more. Demonstrably they only did 3 looks at a Clinton line in October for example...
• Secondary views that are negative about their accuracy have been given -- both structurally that the concept is mostly to criticise which drives into inappropriately doing scores - like rating a SNL skit - or indulging in soapboxing like denigrating Cruz saying (correctly) that the tax code is longer than the bible with "This is a nonsense fact." The George Mason University study about Politifact would seem also true here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• MelanieN, The sentence doesn't say anything about other candidates, nor what statements were selected and analyzed. If we were looking at a specific lie, then we could try to find a source that gives a different POV or accept it as such. What we have here is a generalization and quantification, which is fine and IMO an accurate one, but it doesn't make that judgement a undisputable fact. Trump's team can absolutely give their POV on any particular example to say how they think the statement was taken out of context or whatever. Turning it into a generalization can only be combatted with equal generalization, such as the media is dishonest. And there is no shortage or RS on that point, particularly with regard to the RS being used to support the statement. Morphh ^(talk) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Question about option #6, "have been characterized as controversial or false": I don't think anyone contests that they were controversial, do they? I think it is only "false" that is at issue here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  In today's highly polarized American politics environment, it's difficult for a high-level politician to open their mouth and say anything remotely meaningful without it being controversial. I would consider "controversial" a low-value word there, almost noise. In my opinion the word does not convey the meaning supported by RS and appears to be a compromise word that could be dropped with little or no cost to the article. Not that I'm suggestiing yet another option, that can wait for another day and another discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  MelanieN - I think 'characterized' is supported as it means only that something was prominently said which is where multiple prominent op-eds would WP:V even where the content is disputed or coming from biased sources. It also is reflecting as noteable a characteristization that it was not the usual platitudes. I think even the Trump camp has characterized the statements as controversial, and even in WP discussions so ironically 'controversial' seems non-controversial. Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm absolutely okay with Wikipedia's voice being used to say "false" because it is an undisputed fact. We don't need "the sky has been characterized as appearing to be blue." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is your measure of "many" (a large number relative to truthful statements) a subjective term an undisputed fact? You're using an assessment of select statements (likely controversial ones) which were analyzed by fact-checkers. That's fine, but you can't use that stick to measure the body of his statements without any attribution in WikiVoice. You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now. Morphh ^(talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument for option #3 (and I see Mandruss has changed his opinion from #1 to #3). Option 3 cites exactly where we are getting the information - from fact-checking organizations - and the reader can evaluate how much weight they give to the reports of fact-checking organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I voted for #3 as well and I like the #4 addition. I think Dervorguilla added an excellent quote from Time Magazine that is appropriate for the sentence context. My thought with adding 6, was that it was a minimal change to 1 which would make it compliant with policy by taking it out of WikiVoice. Morphh ^(talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Morphh! But it would be more accurate to say, "Dervorgulla's excellent paraphrase from Time magazine..." :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Morphh: My measure of "many" is an undisputed fact. Trump makes false statements more often than truthful statements. In fact, the scope of his lying has been described as unprecedented. Many reliable sources (example) go so far as to state lying was part of Trump's campaign strategy. The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing, particularly when dealing with a BLP who has a tendencey to sue. Some of the other comments above by you, such as the one about how he makes more false statements than true ones, seem to ascribe to you a truly amazing degree of knowledge regarding every word spoken by the man, as it would only be someone who has such amazingly detailed knowledge who would be in a position to be able to determine the relative frequency of accurate and inaccurate statements. And the only "reliable source" among the "many" you allege exist about how "lying" was a part of the campaign strategy is from an editorial, which we rarely if ever consider truly "reliable" for anything other than the opinions expressed.

I am no fan of Trump myself, far from it, but I have to say that some of the comments being made here seem to me to be possibly be problematic in and of themselves, and might merit some sort of review, particularly if they assert things which, apparently, even the sources produced don't necessarily assert. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not me making these statements. It's reliable sources. I linked to several in my comment. Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. That's why I chose "option 1", because any watering down of "false" would be an egregious failure of our duty to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that #3 waters anything down; if anything, it adds weight to the statement. It is not the usual hedging that we associate with attribution. I ask that you consider my !vote argument with an open mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey - re whether "undisputed fact"... Plainly 'false' is disputed even inside the current TALK. More of interest for article phrasing seems whether it is improperly stating an evaluation as an objective fact, is too vague such as whether this mixes in hyperbole and stupidity or which flavor of 'false' or what percentage of true there is, is unclear why the norm of a politician deception is noteworthy for this particular case, and so on. Since the article word seems putting forward a paraphrase specifically of the fact-checker content, then I think any article use of it should make that clear and reflect the WP:NEWSORG guidelines in both handling and attribution stating it as a specific kind of opinion. If the article line is looking for a generally not disputed overall characterization, then I think both parties have said 'controversial' and perhaps also 'sometimes offensive', but clearly disagree about 'false'. If you think the line is not to be only about the prominence of Politifact et al, then WP:NPOV applies and both positive and negative words would go in according to how prominent they were in use -- and I'm seeing "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, ..." so 'false' might not make the cut.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, disagree that the word 'false' is disputed, by most people commenting here, at least. (If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false, as opposed to being false-on-the-basis-of-unsupported-by-evidence, false-on-the-basis-of-hyperbolically-decorating-the-plain-truth-for-'impact', or the more usual sort of false-on-the-basis-of-being-incorrect-without-further-clarification-of-meaning as well as false-by-accident.) There is little question that sources *do* very much say Trump said *more* false things than other candidates, in percentage terms and in absolute terms. But it is also the case that, as you point out with your list of negative-words, the bulk of the sources tend to criticize Trump's statements in terms of how controversial they were, WAY MORE than in terms of how truthy they were. The main thrust of proposal #3, as I see it, is to stop lumping the 'many...controversial' things in together with the *different* kind of 'relatively-many...false-things-according-to-fact-checkers'. (Personally I believe we could strip the according-to-fact-checkers-bit, as long as we keep the 'relatively' qualifier.) It is correct to say that the quantity of false things was nowhere NEAR the quantity of controversial things, but it would be borderline-non-neutral to simply remove mention of the high relative percentage of false things compared to other candidates (as #2 does in my view), just as it is inaccurate to lump the false things in with the controversial things as #1 does ("Trump has many apples or bananas" is the problem here... we need wikipedia to be saying that Trump had way more apples relative to other candidates, and also-comma had more bananas plus a higher percentage of bananas relative to other candidates.) Saying that without being too wordy is difficult, but #3 is a good start. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Most fact-checker organizations use the term "false" with great specificity, when referring to statements that Trump has made that are untrue. There appears to be significant agreement on this talk page that "false" is the most appropriate term. Trump has also made statements that are offensive for a variety of reasons, so the catch-all "controversial" seems appropriate. Again, there appear to be significant agreement on this talk page that "controversial" fits those instances. I would also suggest an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey - the difference in an article wording TALK is that WP:V for both 'controversial' and 'offensive' exist from Trump and critics, so that wording would be regarded as commonly said (i.e. common meaning both say it). Whether a campaign sub-story (cites Dec 2015- Sep 2016) re 'false' still has enough prominence now to suit the lead would perhaps drive it out, and if it stays perhaps it will be rewritten for this or other reasons. And in a year or so other things may crowd it out anyway. Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Based on a discussion elsewhere, I have added an alternate wording to option #4. If this option is chosen, we can work out the exact wording later. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks much 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Two general comments in response to the above: 1) We are talking about the lede sentence, so detail and explanation are not appropriate. The detail and explanation go below in the text. The lede summarizes what is in the text. It is unusual to have citations in the lede, but that was recommended by the closer of the previous RfC. 2) It is simply incorrect to state that fact-checking sites are "op-eds". Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality. If someone says that Obama proposed admitting 200,000 Syrian refugees, and Obama actually proposed admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees, then the statement's truth or falsity is not a matter of opinion. If someone insists they never said something, and there is video proving that they did, that again is not a matter of opinion. That is the kind of statement that fact-checkers evaluate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• While it is true that fact-checkers are not op-eds, they can suffer from bias, in particular selection bias where they decide which statements NOT to fact-check (thus altering the final percentages by disproportionately deep-digging for new falsehoods and/or by disproportionately eliding truthful statements on individual candidates). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Some of it is extremely nitpicky, like saying Trump falsely used the term "acid wash" when referring to "bleach bit" software, or falsely said Obama drew a "line in the sand" in Syria when actually Obama called it a "red line".[12]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• NBC News is not what MelanieN is calling "fact-checking sites". But I have no doubt you could cherry-pick some extremely nitpicky stuff from the fact-checking sites. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I could, and will if anyone would like. NBC does fact-checking, so it seems like a fact-checking site, but maybe Melanie meant sites that exclusively do factchecking. Might I suggest that we focus on Trump's biggest falsity, and then consider it for inclusion in the lead, instead of including a vague assertion that smacks of namecalling? What we have now is equivalent to "liar, liar, pants on fire", and it might be better to say that Trump insisted the Earth is flat (assuming he said so), and leave it at that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Melanie - the applicable policy for an evaluation isWP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Without an attribution it's neither clear what the line is referring to and the line is not following WP guidelines.

Secondly - the question of if this is a now past time item or something about a campaign no longer due elevation, may have lead somewhere -- about two thirds of commenters want to reword or delete the line. But it seems those are coming from many aspects and are scattered. It might narrow things down to ask which one folks LEAST want and then pick between the two remaining and work on the specific from there.

And -- you really are giving a fantasy above about fact checkers, but it's not the RFC so I'll suggest you simply accept input was given that opinions about statements are opinion pieces and move along. If you must debate how bad they are more than I've already provided above, then post to my TALK page and we'll see if we can pursue cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:Anythingyouwant, to answer your question, I do mean "sites that exclusively do factchecking" and that is the kind of source that is provided. And no, User:Markbasset, I do not accept your assertion that evaluating the truth of a statement by checking it against observable reality is an "opinion", any more that it is an "opinion" for a scientist to make a measurement, or a teacher to evaluate a test answer as correct or incorrect. I know that a prominent Trump surrogate recently claimed that "there are no such things as facts anymore,"[13] but I do not accept that - and I don't think Wikipedia does either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:MelanieN, I don't understand why we would want to prefer full-time fact-checkers to part-time fact-checkers, assuming they are both at reliable sources, but in any event the former can be just as fallible as the latter.[14][15]. If we want to refer to one as opposed to the other, can we please do so more clearly in the proposed language for the lead? Also, what do you think about the idea of mentioning one or two of Trump's biggest whoppers in the lead, instead of merely a vague accusation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not MelanieN, but I'll answer. It would be backwards to put a couple of examples in the lead instead of the concise summary that is currently there (see WP:LEAD). Trump's reputation for making false statement is not only documented by fact checking organizations. There is a very large body of sources to draw from. The American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source for checking facts from actual reliable sources.- MrX 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN -- Please base on WP guidelines -- WP:NEWSORG is the WP guidance that states any analysis is to be presented as attributed statement, i.e. that persons opinion, and WP:BIASED allowing attributed opinions. As to your beliefs re their nature ... they go against WP guidelines and are demonstrably not a match to the actual pages behavior or considering the points of their critics, particularly the selection bias of their picking is not an overall on the person or organized but seems largely an hot-item-of-the-day being critiqued however they want to. Seems a decent thing to have a place to ridicule politicians -- but also they seem just getting ratings, lack methodology, and just would not rate highly as sources by WP standards.

• For example: (a) "exclusively do factchecking" nope ... Washington Post fact checker current first 19 items are 8 (42%) unrated articles; and even of rated items I see one condemning the internet at large about Pizzagate, and one aggregating up prior items to a worst of 2016 and not a direct check of someone ; and (b) "checking it against observable reality" -- note the lack of written guidance re methods of selection or mechanism of evaluation and subjective scoring. Looking at their first attributed piece "Trump’s outdated claims that China is devaluing its currency" ... they say "China hasn’t devalued its currency for about two years" ... not saying the specific fact there, and since the fact was August 15 of 2015 their "about two years" is exaggerated. That the Chinese currency controls still exist or that no devaluation steps have been needed since dollar has been rising lately were not mentioned as considered, nor is any alternative way to view the statement or any input of the other side. I can go with outdated a bit re 'devaluation' being a year ago, but why they awarded this 4 bad marks of a 'whopper' is unstated and unsupported by any literal metric or method -- it's just their subjective pick. Neither the 'about two years' nor the worst possible rating seem to meet WP norms of documenting, nor would the lack of other views pass the WP norms of NPOV.
• Look, the Post site is just two columnists in a DC market or viewpoint that are writing items to get ratings for their website ... it's a nice enough thing but they're not claiming to be infallible or objective and WP guidance would not give these two columnists a ranking higher than scholarly pieces for the same topics. That at least one scholarly study cited another such site as biased and that other NEWSORG articles flame some of their pieces as ridiculous are demonstrable facts. WP practice does report notable opinions as a notable opinion and so this seems a reasonable prominence to be in the article -- but not as an imagined prefect measure of truth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your view of fact checking sources seems to be in the minority here, probably because it's founded on broken logic like source "not claiming to be infallible or objective". I suggest you raise your concerns at WP:RSN.- MrX 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MelanieN said. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What MrX, MelanieN, and Objective3000 said. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkBassett is pointing out that fact-checkers, just like journalistic organizations in general, can be *biased*. Fact-checkers are almost unique, actually, because their specific mandate is to cherrypick statements which can be proven false. "Donald Trump held a campaign rally in Ohio during December 2016" is obviously a statement, and it obviously has a truth-value (it might be pants-on-fire or it might be mostly false or partially false or whatever). In this case, it is *slightly* controversial because I said 'campaign rally' and technically the campaign season is over, and it was a presidential rally or maybe a presidential-transition-rally, but since it was paid for with leftover campaign funds, I'll rate the statement as Almost Entirely True. Point here is simple: telling MarkBassett to take his concerns to RSN is wrong. The problem is not that fact-checkers are non-reliable (by wikipedia standards), the problem is that we have to be very careful not to say things like "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump is a fucking liar" as some commenters seem to wish we would, when in fact the only way to neutrally phrase it is to say "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than other presidential candidates". Note that we CANNOT say, without violating NPOV, that "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than Hillary Clinton" unless we are positive that fact-checkers as a group are not suffering from systemic bias. MarkBassett is arguing that is NOT the case, and his argument is not invalid. But just as there are limits to how far you can go, with known-to-be-biased sources, there are also limits on how far we ought to restrict ourselves: comparing Trump vs Clinton is dangerous, because there is evidence that fact-checking-organizations as a group suffer from bias towards one of the parties, or at least, bias against Trump's party. Comparing Trump to not just Clinton, but to all ~~25 candidates (repub/dem/L/G) in the 2016 cycle, and especially to all 100+ major candidates since dedicated fact-checking organizations became a fad, and saying that "Trump makes more false statements relative to other candidates according to fact-checkers" is a perfectly valid summarization. But we have to be careful here, and communicate to the reader what we are actually saying, and what we are actually not. "Trump makes many false statements" is way too weasel-wordy of a summary, we need to be precise, even if that means we need to be a bit more wordy in our summarization. As simple as possible but no simpler. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the words "liar" or "Hillary Clinton" anywhere in the options, and I'm lost as to why you are going to such great lengths to argue against language that is not on the table in this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, the wording was quasi-proposed, in a running argument which started on the 14th and mostly ended on the 15th. So my going to such great lengths, was to try and convince people that were using unsupported / falsehoods / untrue / lies / damn lies / statistics, as if they were identical (and in particular as if fact-checking was unbiased enough to back up *any* of those terms rather than just merely some of them used carefully), should be considered unwise. We have to be careful with our language, because linguistic precision is the coin of the realm here on wikipedia. Only way to achieve neutrality, only way to avoid endless arguments about whether sentences need to be reworded, and so on. Here is the backtrail, in case you care still, and so that it is all in one place should the topic of 'liar' come up again in the future at some point -- not bluelinking these usernames since I'm just verbatim quoting what they said, here on the talkpage earlier in this thread.

• "...Trump did..., in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest [per fact-checkers/etc]." ... --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...the Washington Post ... endorsed Clinton ...also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies. ... Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now. Morphh (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing..." John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. ..." Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false..." 47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "...an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• and then my own hypothetical above, wherein I argue that fact-checkers CANNOT be used to support 'liar' because they care nothing for intent (and are biased via the combination of selection bias as well as media bias besides)

To be 100% clear, nobody (not even scjessey who was quite clear on that point) was attempting to add the liar-option, and I expect nobody will. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Partial self-correction, there is a new option containing "Hillary Clinton", added after your comments above. Still no "liar". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Usernamen1: - Re: [16][17][18] 1. Your editsum seems to say that my revert was improper per WP:TPO, but the RfC options are "public domain" and your additions are not "somebody else's comment". 2. As I stated in my editsum, Option 1 is for "status quo", "no change", and there is reason or benefit to muddying that water with an Option 1B that in fact requires a change. 3. As you have it now, Options 1 and 1A are the same option, adding to the confusion. 4. Your new option 1B could just as easily be a new option 7. 5. You are creating a mess (similar to the mess of an RfC you started at the WikiProject, which had to be aborted) and I respectfully suggest you use more caution until you have more experience with the organization of complex discussions and RfCs in particular. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Option 1B gives some important perspective than 1A lacks so if an option 1 is chosen, strongly consider 1B. I am not certain which option and am not entering in an extended discussion but merely raise a consideration worth pondering. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (Note: I moved this comment from the "Close early" section to the "Discussion" section where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

@Usernamen1: IMO Option 1B should be called Option 7, and I would appreciate it if you would change it to an Option 7. It is NOT just a minor variation on Option 1. It is not like 4a&b, which are basically equivalent; they say the same thing in slightly different wording, with exact wording to be worked out if that option is chosen. It is assumed that people who choose 4, 4a, or 4b are favoring virtually the same thought, and will accept any negotiated wording that conveys that thought. But your option 1B is not equivalent to option 1, not at all. It introduces an entirely new idea (which may or may not be sourceable). If someone supports option 1 (your 1A) that does mean that they would be equally happy with 1B; I suspect many would oppose 1B (or 7). Anyhow, I second what Mandruss said. Please do not disrupt this discussion by introducing multiple new options, especially after so many people have already commented. Please leave the Options section alone (unless it is to change 1B to 7), and limit your comments to the Comments section. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I authorize MelanieN to make those requested changes described immediately above. In an attempt to withdraw from the article, I am abandoning all efforts and edits in this article with the exception of the first paragraph, which I have devoted significant time and wish to see it to a resolution. I could change my mind and expand into more areas of this article but choose not to. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Usernamen1: - mmm think 1 is 'zero change' so you are talking an option 7 here... and for wording might need a relook. "Many of" has been discussed as vague, and "but those news sources do not accuse Hillary" isn't the case and is dragging offtopic a bit. Would it suit your context point if phrased 'unusually' such as "His statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were noted by media coverage for being unusually controversial or false" ? Markbassett (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

@MrX, MelanieN, Objective3000, and Mandruss: What MarkBassett said... There's also a rather troubling piece by journalist Bryan MacDonald (in RT), “Facebook’s ‘Anti-Fake News’ Plan Looks Like Effort to Curb Alternative Media”. It quotes the widely repeated Breitbart story about PolitiFact.

   “As Breitbart observed: ‘When Trump said Clinton wants “open borders,” PolitiFact deemed his statement “mostly false” — despite the fact that Clinton admitted as much in a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”’”

May I have your thoughts as to the accuracy and verifiability of factchecker–checkers relative to the factcheckers whose fact-checking they check? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: - Did somebody propose Facebook as a fact-checker that we should pay any attention to? If not, I'm missing the point there. And are you really citing one "widely repeated" error (if it's in fact objectively an error) as somehow indicative of PolitiFact's overall reliability? If not, I'm missing that point too. If the one error is so rare that it needs to be milked to such an extent, that would tend to suggest more credibility, not less.
In any case, Markbassett's latest comments do not seem inconsistent with Option 3, which is my current !vote. My support for MrX above was meant as opposition to the apparent (or perceived) claim that we should omit the word "false" because fact-checkers are not reliable. I stand by that opposition until somebody shows me something relatively objective that says fact-checkers have a serious reliability problem—something like a peer-reviewed academic analysis from an institution not well-known as being a partisan think tank. Without that, we might as well skip the debate and just democratic-vote, since that leaves us with only our personal opinions and those of the sources we cherry pick to support them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: No comment. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX, MelanieN, Objective3000, and Mandruss: More focusing on discussing article text and WP guidelines of the RFC topic... Even if the Bio lead would still retain this now-past bit of a particular subset of reporters at the lead level, my input was that the wording issues about it seem too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact, which does not fit with WP:V so I recommended option 2 (remove) though note option 6 (attribute-voice) would handle some. I have explained this was based on seems vaguely talking with wording dominant or tied to fact-checker sites but not stating that, which runs counter to WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG ("reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"), that as crafted it is a general line where WP:NPOV directs other adjectives should be presented (""including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight"). If my input or reasons are unclear RSVP, otherwise just accept that there was an input like this. Markbassett (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I do have trouble parsing a lot of your language, so it's quite possible I fail to understand you. Option 3 makes no statement of fact except to concisely state what fact-checking organizations have said (which easily passes WP:DUE) and attributes the statement to them. Do you claim that that is not an accurate concise statement of what they have said?
too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact - I reiterate, the word "false" in Option 3 is not phrased as fact. Only Option 1 phrases it as fact, all other options that include the word avoid the use of wiki voice for it. I assume you understand the concept of wiki voice—if something is not in wiki voice, it is not a statement of fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:} In ranking, Option 2 and 6 came off better. Option 3 attribution and vagueness made it look worse than option 1 though it improves the part for wikivoice aspect. The word "services" and the cites shown convey it as meaning not about websites Politifact et al. But mostly the "relatively large number" seemed adding an additional vague and odd phrase on top of the existing issues. It's just not clear to me what that meant to say or if it's even the right paraphrase for cites or theme perhaps also said 'noted for extreme falsehoods'. The 'relatively large number' could go into 'relative to what' of is it 'relative to who' or is it meaning percentage of what he says or relative to how magnitude number for a richter 8.3 whopper or what. So to me overall Option3 just looked like a worse wording choice. Perhaps a more generic phrasing of it as 'unusual' instead of reltively large number' Markbassett (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett:
1. The cites can be changed and in my opinion are not actually a fixed part of any of the options.
2. The meaning of "relatively large number" is explained in the wording: "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates". What could be more clear than that?
3. All concise statements are necessarily "vague". That includes your current preferred option, Option 2: "Many [how many?] of his statements in interviews [what interviews?], on social media [what social media?], and at campaign rallies [what campaign rallies?] were controversial {controversial to whom?][what do you mean by 'controversial'?]." I can't imagine prose suitable for the lead that could pass your vagueness test. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:} Umm ...

Being casual about finding cites later doesn't sniff right. Is there a specific, fixed thing trying to be said there or not ? In any case, this was discussing the options listed with context of cites provided, not as hypothetically other words and other cites could be made.

As to what would be more clear than "relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated' Well I though if it can be read as "one more fib than Hillary" or "they chose to evaluate him more often than anyone else" it's not only vague but inappropriately so. In any case I saw it as ADDING a potential new mess so that's why that one didn't suit me. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: At this point, you're not only repeating the same arguments, you're actually recycling some of the same sentences. You argument is largely premised on the idea that fact checkers are biased, so their fact checks are an opinion, and opinions must be attributed. MelanieN gave the best refutation of that when she wrote " Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality."

@Dervorguilla: Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that fact checkers are not always correct. To support that, you provide a single instance of Russia Today citing Breitbart. I rest my case.

Some folks seem to think we can't use the word "many" because it's vague. It's not vague; it's an imprecise generalization, but it has a clear meaning that is understood by any third grader. I explained this in more detail in the previous RfC.- MrX 13:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Side note: Given Markbassett's difficulty understanding the language of Option 3, it might be better worded as follows: "Trump made many controversial statements, and fact-checking services evaluated more of his statements as false than those of other candidates." The phrase "relatively large number" would be eliminated. But that decision does not need to be made in this RfC (or any RfC), and we certainly don't need another option. The RfC is not about copy editing questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If 3 (or 4) is chosen, we can certainly tweak the wording as long as we keep the same meaning. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss - My comment was WP:NEWSORG quote, and if you've chosen to not hear that and a lot of side questions got put in, is perhaps your issue more than mine. Look if you cannot understand I saw three as worse than two then you're not respecting 'Mark honestly sees 3 as worse than 2' or not looking to do WP-based discussion. Meh -- say your piece, and listen for others to make their points. Markbassett (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe people are still arguing about the accuracy of "fact checkers". A few right wing opinion sites (like Breitbart) complain about them, but no serious organizations have done so. They are highly regarded reliable sources, because they would lose all credibility if their material wasn't unimpeachably accurate and are thus self policing. It's time for this line of argument to die, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of "Many" in the lead: Many should never be used because it is an unknown quantity and five references (out of all the reliable news reporting agencies) is not a true quantifier. The use of "many" is loaded language and a slippery slope because there are sources (many?) that claim (and possibly 5 might be reliable) that Trump may be the Antichrist". Should this be in the lead? Should any mention that he is considered a liar be in the lead especially when not included in the body of the article? Is it weasel words? Is it original research? Is it SYNTH? Is it labeling? I submit: Yes, yes, yes, and yes. There is no section in the article concerning the current content in question at all. The article and section Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Campaign misstatements does use "many"; "Politifact named "the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump" as its "2015 Lie of the Year", but that is not one of the references in the article. Was there celebrations in the streets (or rooftops)? Certainly not "thousands and thousands but some evidence that there may have been more than one-- in New Jersey.

If there is an article (with section) on "Campaign misstatements"? Why is some mention (link) excluded from the article body? The WP:lead states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". Are we considering the sentence a "basic fact" as justification for article lead inclusion?

I could go on but Markbassett did a pretty good job in his comments about certain "fact checkers" and bias. The above mentioned "Campaign misstatements" includes "...fact-checkers "have to be really careful when you pick claims to check to pick things that can be factually investigated and that reflect what the speaker was clearly trying to communicate.". As a BLP we are mandated by the WMF, as well as policies and guidelines, to "get it right", ---or we should "leave it alone". Otr500 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Many seems like a perfectly good word to me. And, it is the word used in the sources. There are no cases of WP:RS claiming that Trump is the Antichrist. No, there were not thousands and thousands of folk celebrating 9/11 in the streets of Jersey City. As for claims of biased fact checkers, this is not the page to argue about what is or is not a reliable source. Objective3000 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I miised it. Which of the five references uses "many"? I didn't see the word in any of them. It still seems to me to be a vague and ambiguous word. We are using it to list that Trump has told "many" lies (whitewashed of course), supported by five references. Why not use what the references state? If Trump was given the title "King of Whoppers" by FactCheck.org or the PolitiFact.com 2015 Lie of the Year award then why not use that? Do we not use attribution for this reason?

Why, out of all the material in the four paragraphs in the lead, is there the one statement, not supported in the body of the article, that has to have five references? I submit it is because it does not belong there without supporting mention in the main article, or at least a relevant link? I think it is fair to mention and question this. Can we not add something in the article to make the sentence lead worthy? All the sections except religion (and how is the "Health" subsection related to the "Religion" section?), including some sub-sections, have "Main articles", "See also", or "Further information" listed. Something so important, that it just has to be listed in the lead, that also happens to have an article subsection on alledged "misstatements", doesnt' deserve mention in this article?

If there is some reason we don't want mention, in the body of the article about these "controversial or false" statements, then at the least, how about "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false". Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Close early?

This seems unlikely to happen given continued discussion. This section can be re-opened whenever appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My summary of !voting to date follows. We could apply a weighted split-vote system in an attempt to be more precise, but in this case I think looking at only the first-stated !vote is sufficient. As we have a prior consensus for the current language (Option 1), and as the trend here seems clear enough, I think we should consider closing early. RfCs are automatically de-listed after 30 days, but there is no requirement to run one that long. By my reckoning Option 1 has 51.4%—only a slight majority, but a sizable plurality considering that there are 8 options (including Option 0). Comments? (Tallies current as of !vote by user 70.162.247.233) 1 - 18 - EvergreenFir, Neutrality, Waggers, Casprings, Scjessey, Objective3000, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Volunteer Marek, Marteau, Mike Christie, zzz (Signedzzz), Daaxix, 201.27.125.81, MrX, SPECIFICO, Sagecandor, Pete (Skyring), 71.91.30.188 (AgentOrangeTabby) 1B possibly but not 1A - 1 - Usernamen1 2 - 7 - John Carter, Markbassett, Judgesurreal777, DHeyward, KMilos, Anythingyouwant, 70.162.247.233 4 - 4 - Emir of Wikipedia, 47.222.203.135, MelanieN, Yoshiman6464 3 - 3 - Jack Upland, Mandruss, Adotchar 6 - 3 - Morphh, Dervorguilla, κατάσταση (Katastasi) Not 4 - 1 - Usernamen1 0 (remove sentence) - 1 - JFG 5 - 0 ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Not quite yet Thanks for the tally. But the RfC has been open only 5 days. Wouldn't a week be a normal minimum time to keep it open - recognizing that some people edit only on one or two days of the week? Let's look at this again on the 19th. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC) PS and in the meantime please keep the tally current. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Roger wilco. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Btw it looks like there are actually four !votes for option "4" (which has two slightly different wordings but is still the same option). So option 4 should probably be listed above the options that had only 3 supports. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Yeah, it's hard to see the benefit of two sub-options with no discernible difference in meaning. Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC) There is a discernible difference, not to my own eyes, but to some people: read the notvote by Emir of Wikipedia saying they support #4, but without the 'partly as a result' portion (materially changing the meaning!), and the final comment over here by Jo-Jo Eumerus where they are okay with #4_B but see #4_A as a "misrepresentation" which is attempting to 'explain away' the prior sentence. Although I personally do not see much difference between 4_B and 4_A, they both sound the same to me, at least two wikipedians interpreted the phrases as being very distinct (and interpreted them differently from Mandruss and myself it seems!). I also think that whether to insert #4A/#4B as a supplement to the existing intro-sentences, is a distinct question from how to phrase the existing sentence about falsehoods, but that is a structural problem with RfC's where people only notvote for one single option. Speaking of which, although as yet they haven't modified their notvote text here, Jo-Jo Eumerus on their user-talkpage indicated that they would support #1 followed by #4_B (although not by #4_A). Does not change the tally above, since (structural limits again) as written #4B can only piggyback on #3, of course. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Agree with MelanieN that keeping the RfC open is preferred. There is always hope that new eyeballs will appear, who can sway the consensus with their wise input... plus from a practical standpoint closing this RfC early, actually changes nothing in mainspace, since the 'winning' option by nose-count is already in mainspace... so why hurry up and close something that results in no difference for the readership? Leave it open please. Lastly, although this nose-counting is not WRONG per se, it is just nose-counting. What matters is whether the arguments are policy-backed. Notvotes like "we already had an RfC months ago with different people participating" are obviously not policy-based arguments! WP:PRECEDENT does not apply, so I think the RfC is in reality closer than the nose-counting would indicate. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Keep open per RFC guidelines" . WP:RFCEND states that the default is an RFC open for 30 days. With an article like Trump, extra caution should be taken. Therefore, keeping it open for the full 30 days is wise. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC) To clarify, nose-counting was never intended to be the end-all, but it is useful information for discussions of early close. Absent some purpose like that, I would never produce tallies because I think they can influence !voting. But now that this section exists, I plan to keep the tallies updated per MelanieN's request unless we prefer to remove or hat this section. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I'll suggest keep it open more for the said comments and different views as long as they come. Such as the topic of if the line has become dated, the comment that 'controversial' somewhat overlaps 'false' (or my 'offensive'), about whether the line is conveying this as at all unusual, if it's meaning fact-check sites or what, etcetera. I'm also dubious about counting into !votes or early ones who didn't see the later-appearing options, and 201.27.125.81 seems odd... Ehh. input provided, for what its worth. Markbassett (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Mark makes a good point about ongoing discussion. Even if the "voting" has slowed down, active discussion suggests that the topic is not ready to be closed. When I summarized the "counties" thread here, it was because nobody had added anything for five days. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN: - Given the responses here, this seems likely to go the full 30. My experience with these highly contentious issues is that people will continue to discuss as long as discussion is open, long after discussion has become circular (we're already partly circular after one week). There are infinite ways you can state the same argument, and new participants are always arriving, fresh and ready to receive the baton from their exhausted predecessors in the cause. In that case there is little benefit to the tallies and I suggest hatting the subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Trivia added to lede

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

---

Somebody added this sentence to the lede: "Trump admires Richard Nixon[12] and, as well, claims to admire Auric Goldfinger[13][14] and P.T. Barnum.[15][16]" I consider this trivial to the point of nonsensical. IMO it doesn't belong in the article, much less in the lede. I can't revert it right now; does someone else want to? --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please deposit brownie points in my account.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Anythingyouwant: FWIW - Yes, the following "very well sourced edit", published by several "Reliable Sources", such as "The New York Times", "The Washington Post" and "Bloomberg News", was added to the "Donald Trump" article in good faith (see copy below) - and later reverted by "User:Anythingyouwant" - some may consider the edit worthy - and sufficiently worthy to include in the "Donald Trump" article - Comments Welcome by other editors of course - to reach "WP:CONSENSUS" - per "WP:BRD", "WP:OWN" & related - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Copied from "Donald Trump (10:25, 29 December 2016 version)":

Trump admires Richard Nixon and, as well, claims to admire Auric Goldfinger and P.T. Barnum.

References

Well, in my opinion, you've put undue weight on the people you've chosen to mention, plus distorted the cited sources. Those sources say he also admires people like Clint Eastwood and Orson Welles, but you've chosen to ignore that because you want to make Trump look as bad as possible. And you distort what Trump said about the people you do mention; for example, did he say that he admires Goldfinger, or rather that he thinks it was a great character? I can and do think Uriah Heep was a great character, without in any way admiring him. And, of course, none of this is remotely appropriate for the lead, which is supposed to serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Anythingyouwant, there was some problem with the weighting of these particular names, and yes, the exact verbiage needed some work. But it was still a good faith and sourced edit, placed in a reasonable part of the article (#Early life) although personally I would have created a new subsection called Donald Trump#Influences in the vein of articles about musicians and artists, which covers their antecedents and predecessors and how they viewed such things. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose anywhere in the article, per MelanieN, even if Eastwood and Welles are included. Will retire if added to the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Support @Anythingyouwant and Mandruss: Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - agreed - *entirely* ok with me to add "Clint Eastwood" and "Orson Welles" as well - esp if appropriately sourced by a "WP:RS" of course - however - no - did not intentionally try to slight the content in any way - nonetheless - seems being aware of such influences (*any and all*) may be helpful in understanding the person in some way I would think - to me, at the moment, it may be "WP:Undue" to try and hide (and/or "WP:CENSOR"?) such influences from public view instead - also - no - the original edit was not added to the lede at all, as originally claimed by "User:MelanieN" or, later, erroneously repeated by "User:Anythingyouwant" and "User:Mandruss" - the edit was actually "added" to a non-lede subordinate section (ie, "Donald Trump#Early life" - see "edit" ) instead - hope this all helps in some way - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, User:Drbogdan, you put it into the "Early life" section rather than the lead (I must try not to reflexively agree with User:MelanieN so much!). Anyway, if you would like to draft up a revised sentence and present it here, then we would be glad to give it a look, but you would have to explain why this would be more important than the zillion other little factoids about Trump that we have opted to leave out of this particular article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for erroneously stating it was in the lede. But it doesn't fit any better in the "early life" section - in a paragraph about his family. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Are we able to source a preference for vanilla, strawberry or chocolate? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oh please, Ryk72, the neapolitan triplet? No no no, that will never do. Cherry-vanilla ice cream. Sourced.[19] Probably WP:ABOUTSELF since it is an interview, but Us Magazine back in 2010 probably has enough reliable-source-standing to have correctly recorded for posterity, the flavor Trump verbalized, with enough accuracy for wikipedia purposes. It was founded as a spinoff of the NYT, you know! Before he became the POTUS, he was a pop culture celeb, so we have almost any trivial factoid you might wish for. Bet you are glad you asked  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and MelanieN: Thanks for your comments - np - iac - another suggested edit addition to consider may be the following (*entirely* ok w/ me to ce or place elsewhere in the article of course):

Another suggested edit addition to the "Donald Trump" article:

Trump admires Richard Nixon and, as well, claims to admire P.T. Barnum. Hollywood film notables, favored by Trump, include fictional film character Auric Goldfinger and the film actor/director Clint Eastwood; Trump claims that his favorite film is Citizen Kane.

References

Other similar possible edit additions, to help better understand "Donald Trump", may be considered as well of course - Comments Welcome - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Favorite color? Boxers or briefs? Sorry but none of this gives me any great insight into the mind of Donald Trump. If I thought it did, I would probably be wrong. Not encyclopedic. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see how to salvage this proposal, because it doesn't really respect the sources. The sources say Trump sees himself as comparable to PT Barnum but only "a little bit". The sources say Goldfinger was one of his favorite characters, not that Trump favors Goldfinger against his fictional adversaries. Moreover, the stuff about Nixon is too vague to be useful, without saying what it was about Nixon that he admires; surely Trump doesn't admire Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal, whereas many people admire Nixon's rapprochement with China.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Thank you for your opinion - and your interpretation of the noted "sourced content" - it's *greatly* appreciated - however - a more objective view of the suggested content may be better I would think - accepting the content from the cited "reliable sources", without such interpretation, and "as is" (and/or "prima facie"?), may be preferred - the suggested edits (see proposed versions above) seem sufficiently worthy to add to the "Donald Trump" article afaics atm - further Comments Welcome of course - in any regards - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN that the stuff about which politicians Trump has been quoted as being influenced by, is a bit trivial for the main biographical article. (Once he has a few years of governing under his belt, *then* his record of governing will generate some actions-to-actions comparisons to historical politicians.) But I also agree with Drbogdan that this stuff is important. Just as with Trump's professed admiration for Patton, we need to have Trump's commentary on other politicians he has said things about -- both real ones like Nixon and literary ones like Goldfinger -- in almost exactly the way we say that Trump likes Patton because he likes Patton (film). Speaking of which, see also Enlai's action. That kind of stuff speaks to Trump's influences, and probably belongs in Political positions of Donald Trump#Background, along with his statements about Putin and his phone-call to Taiwan/Argentina/etc as peotus, and other such things. It is way more important, for instance, that Trump has professed a personal gut reaction to Nixon (who after watergate is probably most famous for re-opening relations with China), than that Trump endorsed the ethanol-lobby in Iowa (and eventually partially thereby earned the backing of former-Chris-Christie endorser Gov.Branstad the ambassador-designate to China). What particular things Trump says and does not say, do make a difference, and did also in past elections -- Palin was criticized for liking Hoosiers for instance[20] -- whereas Gore was lauded for going to Vietnam yet also lauded for being morally against going to Vietnam[21]. Trump's thoughts on film-characters and politicians are not a huge part of his biography, but they do belong somewhere in his subsidiary backstory articles. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's opinions about historical and fictional characters? What does Goldfinger have to do with his political positions?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That he wanted to rule the world? But somewhat more seriously, please see List of economic advisors to Donald Trump, which includes Judy Shelton, one of the relatively-rare Ph.D economists which had been advising Trump... both Shelton and Trump have spoken favorably of a return to the gold standard, or a modern equivalent thereof, although it tends to be mentioned rarely, and more as "something that would be nice if we could manage it one day" rather than as "something that I guarantee will happen". 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - and Additionally => "Goldfinger" may represent "wanting more" - both politically - and economically - and even moreso? - perhaps relevant? - perhaps significant? - the alternative - having *enough* - may not easily apply here I would think - *enough* may be something some may never have apparently - if interested, my published "NYT" comments in 2013 may be even more relevant today => " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/krugman-the-one-percents-solution.html?comments#permid=380 " - in any case - hope this helps in some way to support adding such notions to the "Donald Trump" article as a possible improvement - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no sense beating around the bush. If reliable sources say that his appreciation of the Goldfinger character somehow indicates a predisposition to reinstate the gold standard into monetary policy, then your draft ought to say so. Seems kind of farfetched though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I can find nothing in Trump's statements that remotely suggests such a connection. If a few "reliable" sources jump to that conclusion, I don't think we are obligated to jump with them. Even if we did, it would have to be handled as opinion/analysis, and I would seriously question the WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup re "Goldfinger", "Donald Trump" and the "Gold Standard" - there seems to be numerous "Reliable Sources" re the Connections - Several Examples are as follows: --

Casual Internet Searches for "gold standard" "donald trump" "goldfinger" gave several "Reliable Sources" (there are more):

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2016/04/10/book-review-james-rickards-the-new-case-for-gold/#4739e37a43d7
• http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/donald-trump-gold-metal-invest/2016/07/23/id/740159/

Casual Internet Searches for "gold standard" "donald trump" also gave several "Reliable Sources" (there are more):

• http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482279689/trump-favors-returning-to-the-gold-standard-few-economists-agree
• http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-meeting-john-allison-bank-ceo-abolish-the-fed-gold-standard-2016-11
• http://www.inquisitr.com/3763192/trumps-treasury-pick-has-odd-gold-standard-and-federal-reserve-ideals/

Perhaps helpful for those interested in the above Connections? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those sources says that Trump likes Goldfinger because he favors a return to the gold standard. Google searches are not enough, you actually need to read the sources you cite. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, my point in bringing up Shelton, was that Trump's formal and informal economic advisors, have some worthwhile impact on his presidency. Drbogdan's point in bringing up Trump's opinions on geopolitical actors (see what I did there?) like Reagan and Goldfinger, is that those opinions do say something about the character of the person holding the opinion, and the decision to publicize the factoid is itself WP:NOTEWORTHY. The requirement here is not to prove that "Trump likes Goldfinger" and therefore "Trump would support a gold standard". That would be WP:SYNTH. The point is that, we have refs saying Trump and some of his advisors support the gold standard, and those belong in the appropriate article -- List of economic advisors to Donald Trump and also Political appointments of Donald Trump since Shelton is under consideration for a formal role in the administration (ditto for Allison who was covered at Cabinet of Donald Trump). There is a *separate* issue as to whether and where the goldfinger/nixon/patton/etc press coverage, ought to go, and the answer is, either in the biographical article Donald Trump in a views-or-stances-or-personal-life-subsection, or in a background-section of Political positions of Donald Trump. The sources exist to prove that the reliable media *does* pay attention to such things, as what Trump/Palin/Gore/etc thought about various issues. That means that WP:NOTEWORTHY has been achieved, an the question becomes, which article is appropriate for the info? We should not add anything about Goldfinger to the economic advisors article, until and unless Trump is on record saying "Goldfinger's positions influenced me to make a speech before congress about economic issue xyz". But *that* is no reason to keep the goldfinger factoid out of mainspace. It is a factoid, and the reliable sources have paid attention to it, thus we ought to see where it fits in an encyclopedic context. Some things do NOT fit, such as Trump's favorite ice cream, because everybody has a favorite food, and that favorite food (unless one is a chef) almost never has impact on history. Trump's love of the movie Patton (film) may yet have impact on history, cf James Mattis and John F. Kelly and Michael Flynn and so on. No moving the goalposts please, this is not a discussion about whether there is a connection between goldfinger and shelton, this is a discussion about whether there is a sourced connection between Trump and his opinions on various politicians/films/etc, and if so where the sourced material best ought be summarized in wikivoice. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The question is not "where in the encyclopedia should we put these comments?"; it's "should we put these anywhere?" Just because things are sourced, i.e. have been mentioned by a reliable source, does not mean we have to use them. There is no evidence that Trump himself meant anything more than an offhand response to an interviewer's question. We should not clutter up this or any article with stuff like this - unless and until we see evidence that these people actually matter to him in terms of affecting his actions or his philosophy. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly relevant question to this discussion => Should an "encyclopedia" (like "Wikipedia") present "notable" Facts from "reliable sources" (see suggested edits above) - and let the Reader understand them for themselves - in their own way - OR - should editors first select "notable" Facts from "reliable sources" (perhaps even in some pov way?) for the Reader to view instead - Generally - which seems better? - and more encyclopedic? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The key here is that we include notable facts from reliable sources - and not trivial or unimportant (non-notable) facts from reliable sources. And there is no need to add quotes and wikilinks to every other word, which may be regarded as patronizing/insulting/sarcastic/all of the above. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for your reply - yes - agreed - seems WP:CONSENSUS may be the best way of determining WP:Notability afaics atm - as to the quotes - seemed to me a helpful way of highlighting hyperlinks - never thought this might be understood otherwise - Thank you for letting me know - in any regards - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

47.222.203.135, your last comment decorated this page with 426 words explaining what this discussion about, without providing a shred of RS support for inclusion of anything. With respect, I perceive a very low signal-to-noise ratio. To my knowledge, no RS has been presented to support anything but "Trump's favorite" trivia, and I think we have some agreement to omit that from this article (or at least a lack of consensus to include it). Those of us who don't think the word "Goldfinger" has a place in this article are not required to prove the negative. Unless you can present some RS, I think it's time to euthanize this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think thou dost protest too much. "Sorry but none of this gives me any great insight into the mind of Donald Trump. If I thought it did, I would probably be wrong." That was your comment, and I perceive that you have followed through on your comment with worthy persistence. If you are truly interested in sources, please see below. Or just open and new tab and do some searches, as Drbogdan suggested further up. But worthy persistence is one thing, there is also such a thing as reinforcing one's initial gut reaction, by continually moving the goalposts. As for your implied complaint about length, when I am more brief, you complain about that as well.[22][23] Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources say, and not have individual wikipedians (or groups of individual wikipedians) deciding what is relevant and what is not relevant for the readership -- that is not what WP:NOTEWORTHY says, and neither is it what WP:UNDUE says. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN's opening comment clearly defined the topic of this thread, and it has nothing to do with Shelton or gold standard. For organization's sake, in my opinion, anything that tangential should be kept separate. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Mandruss. To User:47.222.203.135 regarding this comment above: "Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources say, and not have individual wikipedians (or groups of individual wikipedians) deciding what is relevant and what is not relevant for the readership -- that is not what WP:NOTEWORTHY says, and neither is it what WP:UNDUE says." Sorry, but this is a complete distortion of Wikipedia policy. You seem to be saying that everything that has been mentioned by a Reliable Source has to be included somewhere. Neither NOTEWORTHY nor UNDUE implies anything like that. The truth is that Wikipedians absolutely DO decide what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in an international encyclopedia; we don't just blindly include everything every said about any subject by any reliable source. As I quoted to you on my talk page, WP:BALASP (a subsection of WP:NEUTRALITY) is the governing principle here. It says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This is exactly what we are talking about here: material which is verifiable (i.e. sourced) and impartial, but not of sufficient significance to be included in this or any article. (Unless you want to start an article Donald Trump's likes and dislikes Cultural and intellectual influences on Donald Trump, and good luck with that one at AfD.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

nothing directly to do with nixon/goldfinger/ptbarnum

• Soundbite: "...in some ways, the movies are the defining element of American culture." --William Jefferson Clinton, interview with Roger Ebert, immediately after Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008.[24]
• Patton (film) mentioned in June 2015, please see Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#cite_ref-foxnews_June15_2015_669-6 == Trump said that to combat ISIL, he would "I would find you a proper general. I would find a Patton or a McArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin."[25]

• Page is locked, somebody please fix the grammar bugs: Trump said that to combat ISIL, he would "I would find you [referring to the voters] a proper...

• James Mattis nominee-designate in December 2016, please see Cabinet of Donald Trump#Secretary of Defense.

• Quite a few pretty-solid sources.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
• Plus some more-borderline sources.[33][34][35]

• And of course, that is not the only movie which has received impeccably solid sourcing, plus Trump is not the only potus to be profiled by the media in this way.[36] Nor is Trump the only candidate mentioned, in said impeccable sourcing (plus of course in plenty of less-impeccable sourcing like People Magazine).[37][38][39][40][41] And in some cases it is product-placement for the media-entity giving the interview,[42] while in other cases films like Antwone Fisher are more than just commented on by politicians in passing.[43]

Wikipedia does not currently mention any 'Patton' sources that I have found in a quick skim through mainspace, except for the one June 2015 quote that I noted above. But pretty clearly there are reliable sources, almost enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone mere WP:NOTEWORTHY. Where does well-sourced encyclopedic material like this belong? Once we have answered the trump-faves-patton question, I believe it will be easier to answer the trump-faves-other sorts of questions. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal about the word "plurality"

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Based upon the discussion above (in the last section), I'd like to suggest modifying the lead as follows, call this Version A: “ Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton who received a plurality. ” The only change above is adding the last four words ("who received a plurality"). A more concise version would be Version B: “ Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. His Democratic rival Hillary Clinton received a plurality of the nationwide popular vote. ” Version C is keeping it the way it is, and Version D is removing the second sentence while keeping the first. Also, Version E is deleting everything after "2016".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Survey about the word "plurality" Support Version B (first choice), Support Version A (second choice), Support Version D (third choice), Support Version E (fourth choice), Oppose Version C. That Clinton won a plurality is notable, it's in the lead of the Hillary Clinton article, and is explicitly stated by numerous reliable sources (e.g. BBC, Washington Post, International Business Times, Real Clear Politics, et cetera). If we omit "plurality" in the lead then we ought to omit discussion of the popular vote in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Support Version E, "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016." There is no reason this option should be off the table, if we're discussing that sentence again. Add detail below the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose change, support C (status quo) or E (trim) – The current wording clearly conveys the message that Trump received fewer votes nationwide, or equivalently that Clinton received more. This article is Trump's biography, so it is more natural to keep him the sentence's subject. Adding the notion that Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote is best explained at the election page, or on her own biography; it does not bring value in the lead of Trump's bio. Besides the status quo, I would also support a trimmed version without the voting details, but then we need to mention Hillary Clinton somehow, so we could say: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 against his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Still, the current version looks stronger to me. — JFG talk 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC) I support modification of E as per above. It's not like a bunch of people have !voted for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Discussion about the word "plurality" Comment: You need a version that mentions Trump broke the blue wall, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and won Ohio and Florida. That is a historic victory and should be mentioned. And as far as the coastal states that Clinton won, Trump did not campaign there. He used modeling to determine what states he needed to win, just like Obama did in the 2008 primary. Those are the states Trump focused on, and those are the states he won. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, but all this "historic victory" narrative you keep trying to push is unwarranted. Trump's electoral college win was, in point of fact, quite ordinary and unremarkable when compared to previous elections. Although he did well in the electoral college, in several states it could've gone either way and flipped the result. The existing text, the result of two previous discussions, is more than sufficient to describe what happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Show me reliable sources that call his historic victory ordinary. Even CNN acknowledges he broke the blue wall. [44]. It was an historic win. A non-politician beats a career politician, and the first woman candidate for president. He wins blue states that had not gone Republican in a very long time. He used modeling to tell him which states he needed to win, just like Obama did in 2008. Yes, it was historic. Not at all ordinary. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) If the sun comes up, CNN will call it breaking news. Objective3000 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: It is ordinary. Trump ranked only 46th by Electoral College margin, which is statistically a rubbish performance. It is clear Trump won by the skin of his teeth thanks to Russia leaking hacked material to WikiLeaks and an outrageous (and possibly illegal) act by James Comey. Your attempt to paint Trump's win as anything other than unremarkable is hilarious. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC) It certainly was a surprising upset, biggest one since 1948. Pollsters focused so much on national polls, they neglected the state polls.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC) (e/c) I think Scjessey is not wanting to see the point. It was historic for a businessman who has never held office to win the highest office in the land. It was historic that he broke the blue wall. It was historic on many levels including the behavior of the main stream media, etc. But at the end of the day, here's why Hillary lost: Hillary failed to campaign and 'go to every fish fry' like Obama and Trump. She engaged in pay for play while SecState and put it in emails. It was the content of the emails that lost it for her. The Russians or the Martians or WikiLeaks, or whoever got hold of her emails didn't do it. She did it. Notice, she's never denied what was in the emails. It was just the main stream media chose not to mention that big elephant in the room. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Accusing Clinton of "pay for play" is a WP:BLP vio. Objective3000 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) There’s no question that the results were surprising. But, if you look at Nate Silver’s win probability chart over time, there were wild swings in polling predictions over the last months. In any case, while the word “historical” may make some sense in a general article about polling; I don’t see it here. Since the set of presidential elections is so small, you can find numerous facts about every election that are unique. And I suppose you could even argue that every presidential election is “historical”. And yes it makes sense to point out some of the unique features of this election. But, the concept that a close election resulting in a win by a well-known, rich, white male from a major party is a “historic victory” seems a huge stretch. Objective3000 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Well using the race angle of a 'rich white male' applies if you're talking about career politicians who've never done anything else in life, like Paul Ryan. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC) SW3, come on, let's not soapbox. There's already enough to do around here! Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC) As far as I can tell, no one objects to Version B, so I plan on installing it tomorrow (Wednesday). I would install Version E, but people have made comments elsewhere on this page inconsistent with Version E. Version B can always be changed to Version E if a consensus for the latter develops.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: I don't think it would be wise to publish your suggested version with very little participation from other editors. "No one objects" doesn't mean "There is consensus". I didn't bother to comment earlier because I was nonplussed by all your suggestions, but now I will explicitly object (with a rationale, see above)… — JFG talk 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Per WP:Consensus, "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." Since you have objected, I will not make the change. However, the material now in the lead suggests that Clinton rather than Trump won a majority of the popular vote, which is false, and is very easily corrected. Only two candidates are mentioned in the lead, which implies that one won a majority and the other did not, and Version B corrects this problem using even less words than the current version.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Because I think the sentence in question makes the lead preposterously misleading, I have left it alone but added some material to a later sentence in the lead: "At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth to be elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote (emphasis added).Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Support for Provisional IRA?

Discussion initiated by banned editor HarveyCarter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact he attended an IRA fundraiser be mentioned? (AndyTyner (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)) You would need cast-iron sourcing for such a claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC) I've seen the video. But, he used to show up at fundraisers without invitation and without any support for the causes. For all we know, he may not have even known what the IRA was. Without an RS that states he actually supported the IRA, there could be BLP problems. Objective3000 (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) I Googled this and it's not looking like a reliable claim. Not even a comment from Jerry Adams, who would probably not keep it a secret that Donald Trump supported the IRA, which is disbanded now, btw. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Remember this is the wikipedia article for the President-elect of the United States, not a gossip column or fake news site. Reliable sources needed, not hearsay SomewhereInLondon (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Well, it's not hearsay. Guardian independent. I'm just uncomfortable with the conclusions that could be drawn as he tended to go to lots of fundraisers just for the photo ops. I think it's WP:UNDUE. Objective3000 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC) An important distinction, the sources describe it as a fundraiser for Sinn Féin, specifically Friends of Sinn Féin, and not the IRA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC (e/c) It's also from 1995 and the Guardian and Independent are obviously looking to gin up something. I wouldn't pay it any mind. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) In any case it was more than 20 years ago, and I'm not aware of him doing anything to overtly support Sinn Fein or the IRA then or since. Chances are he went to this just as part of his normal routine of networking and self-promotion. Mentioning it would be UNDUE and a form of (IMO unwarranted) guilt by association. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Zzuuzz: Just to be clear, at the time we are talking about there was no fundamental difference between Sinn Féin and the IRA. Fundraising on behalf of Sinn Féin was exactly the same as providing support to a terrorist organization. If the association between Trump and Sinn Féin was solid (and I don't believe there is sufficient RS to say there was), it would be a pretty serious matter. But the sourcing isn't great and the association appears minimal at best, which is why I agree with Objective3000 that is would be undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC) The matter is already covered adequately at Ireland–United States relations: "Trump attended an IRA fundraiser with Gerry Adams, shortly before the IRA bombed Canary Wharf." That article provides the necessary context, i.e. that Adams had been received at the White House earlier the same year.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC) That edit makes it sound like Donald Trump had something to do with the bombing of Canary Wharf and seems a WP:BLP violation and should be rewritten. Unless there are sources connecting Trump to the bombing, then it seems to be a deliberate attempt to connect him with a crime he had nothing to do with. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC) The edit looks innocent to me. But, is why this is undue for the article as some would infer such. Objective3000 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC) If the bombing had occurred before the fundraiser, then Trump might arguably be blamed for associating with an organization that he knew had done that. But the bombing happened after, not before, which tends to get Trump off the hook. Anyway, the material does not belong in this article at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Could Trump have attended the fundraiser without donating money himself? This is bound to be a major issue if he appoints IRA supporter Peter King to any position, as the IRA had not ended its violent campaign in 1995. (AndyTyner (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)) note: comment moved from unnecessary new section below. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Everyone who attended that fundraiser had to donate $200 to get in. I don't see any reliable sources saying Trump contributed beyond that door fee, although it is certainly possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC) If it becomes an issue, then we'll revisit. Objective3000 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @Scjessey: Agree with Objective3000. If it becomes an issue, and if there are reliable sources that say Donald Trump paid to get into the fundraiser. Celebrities are also invited to gin up the event and are not expected to pay. Just being there doesn't mean anything. He was a real estate developer and went everywhere to everything. Also, was the fundraiser actually held by Sinn Fein or was it really sponsored by one of the Irish societies? That's more likely who held the event. Big difference there. Also, The Guardian is a tabloid and is not a reliable source. They brought back this story from 1995 in November 2015 for click bait. They wrapped alot of non-Trump with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC) The Guardian is very much a reliable source. The news that the Provos have disbanded seems to have bypassed the Irish government, security forces, and courts. Those facts aside, agree this isn't worthy of inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC) "The Guardian" is a broadsheet, not a tabloid. There was only a temporary ceasefire in 1995 so even $200 would have contributed to the terrorist campaign when it resumed in February 1996. (AndyTyner (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)) You might want to look back at all the history, which includes the dates and the circumstances. President Bill Clinton gave Gerry Adams permission to fundraise in America just before St. Pat's Day in March 1995. He also had Adams to the White House. New York Governor Pataki met with Gerry Adams, as did US State Dept personnel and Cardinal O'Conner, the Archbishop of New York. The Guardian claims this fundraiser occurred "just before" the Docklands incident. However, the fundraiser was held in March 1995. The Docklands attack occurred in February 1996, nearly a year later. The only thing of note that happened before the attack was the November, 1995 visit by President and Mrs. Clinton to Northern Ireland where they met with Gerry Adams, among others. They most certainly had nothing to do with the attack and neither did President-elect Trump. Ginning up the story for click bait is what makes the Guardian a tabloid and not reliable on this. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "The Guardian" is not a tabloid, it's a broadsheet. The fundraiser was in November 1995. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:B0FC:5CF6:3969:12F5 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)) Gerry Adams fundraiser at Essex House March 1995 so says the New York Times. Has nothing about Donald Trump other than to name him in the caption of the photo, which The Guardian, in it's best tabloid behavior, used to gin the click bait story. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Your opinion that it's a "clickbait" story from a tabloid is not borne out by the fact that it was covered by multiple reliable broadsheet sources, including the Guardian and the Independent. (And it's Saint Patrick's Day, St Paddy's Day, or just Paddy's Day. Never "St. Pat.") BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC) It's not an original story. You do understand that, right? The Guardian wrote a story back in November 2015 taking a photo from 1995 by the New York Times that did have a story about the Gerry Adams fund raiser but did not feature Donald Trump at all except in a photo. You understand that right? The Guardian doesn't have an original story from March 1995 claiming Donald Trump did anything. And I'll call it what I please. I could call it St. Shite's Day for all the trouble this Guardian tabloid style story caused around here yesterday. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Keep in mind that The Guardian is a British paper; and the IRA is rather a sensitive subject in the UK. I don't think this discussion is particularly useful. Objective3000 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC) You do understand your condescending tone doesn't help your argument, right? You do understand repeating something you believe doesn't make it true, right? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Objective3000, where The Guardian is published really is irrelevant. Even on articles related to the Troubles, nobody would argue for the exclusion of a source on that basis. In any case, the story has been covered by multiple reliable sources including not only the (UK) Independent and Telegraph but also the Irish Independent (December '16), the Irish Times (December '15), the (pro-Irish Republican) Irish Central (August '15), and a few thousand more... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Bastun, I was not arguing against inclusion for that reason. I was only saying that it's not surprising that The Guardian covered this recently given where it is published. I do believe that inclusion in this article is undue weight. But, it may make sense to include at Ireland–United States relations. Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC) non-arbitrary break Hey, people - when something offensive has been posted, don't just ask for revdel - first DELETE it, immediately. As long as it hasn't been deleted, it continues to show up on all subsequent edits. Sorry for revdeling a bunch of your edits, but they were "tainted" with the offensive stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks. My first instinct was to delete or hat. But, was afraid it wouldn't have been revdeled if I did. And, frankly, wanted to play out a bit more rope to stop a repeat. Objective3000 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks Melanie. I was thinking the very same as Objective3000. Worried that if I deleted it, it would cause problems. Sorry, next time, I'll let you know asap. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Delete on sight. And THEN holler for a revdel. And a block, of course; nobody had done that yet either. The block may or may not help; that type of user address changes frequently. If he reappears and starts doing this stuff again, delete at once and holler for me or any other admin that you see is online. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC) It's a missed learning opportunity for me, since I never saw the offensive material. Maybe some generous soul could email me. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Just to add to the "lesson" (sorry you missed it, Mandruss): There are actually two reasons to delete it right away without waiting for an admin. One is that the longer it stays "live" on the page, the more subsequent material has to be revdel'ed. The other, more important reason: the whole point is to get it out of sight. If you delete it, that gets it out of sight for 99% of the people who come to the page. Cleaning up the history is a minor tidying-up operation, since hardly anyone even knows about the history. One other lesson: when you posted to me about the other article, I was at dinner so it was more than an hour before I got the message. Most people, when in need of a revdel or an emergency block or something like that, ask three or four admins - and whoever gets the message first carries it out. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC) This story illustrates that we should let rely on reliable sources to determine what is important rather than look for stories we think the mainstream has ignored and waste editors' time on investigating them. At the time, Sein Fein was involved in peace talks and the U.S. had agreed to treat them as legitimate parties in the UK-Irish peace talks rather than as terrorists. So Trump's appearance with Sein Fein, not the Provos IIRC, had little significance. This was discussed earlier btw. TFD (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @The Four Deuces:, the source itself was a joke. In November 2015, The Guardian reprinted an article from 1995. It was entirely taken out of context, not reliable at all, and obviously an attempt to make it seem like Trump was involved with all that had been going on. Totally inappropriate but it kept getting argued that it was all right. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN - Wikipedia:Oversight begins with: "The fastest way to request oversight is to email the oversight team." I assume that means it's the fastest way to receive oversight, but I could be wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC) In my experience, the fastest way to receive revdel -- which is different from oversight and I believe there is no IRC channel for that -- is using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect which is listed as one of the channels at the fairly-easy-to-remember WP:IRC shortcut. You can also email for revdel, too, but the IRC method gives instant gratification -- if there is an admin there, you can get an immediate acknowledgement that they are aware of the problem. The advantage to using IRC or email for alerting the admin (as opposed to usertalk of indivuidual or multiple individual admins) is that you do not have a lot of on-wiki activity which contains the phrase 'revdel' or the phrase 'oversight' ... theoretically that is a risk that could be capitalized on by a wikipedia-criticism-site intentionally (people with an axe to grind over lack of verified-blue-check-usernames for example), or a wikipedia-scraper-crawler unintentionally (search engines and CCBYSA re-users). This is a rare situation where off-wiki channels are better than on-wiki. And often fast(er). See also, Streisand effect. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Hi @MelanieN:, I did put together an ANI, then I saw on that page that for revdels I should email oversight. I sent off all the info to the email listed at ANI, and then waited. When I saw things getting worse, that's when I went to ANI and ask if any admins were about. I found one admin but he was going to bed. Then I remembered you're an admin and came to your talk page. You edit here so naturally I think of you as an editor. And you never pull the admin rank, so you blend right in. Thanks for getting on that so fast. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC) At this page I do function as a regular editor - and I don't normally do any admin stuff since I am WP:INVOLVED. But at need I can step into the phone booth and change into my Superman costume. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC) And you did it so well. Well done, Superman. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: WP:Oversight is different from WP:RevDel. Oversight is a complete and total obliteration of the edit, such that even admins can't see it. Oversight is very rare and it is probably not what you need. Most of the time in a situation like this you will be looking for a garden-variety revdel which any admin can do. You can ask individual admins, or you could post at AN asking for a revdel and you would probably get quick action. BTW any time you are asking for a revdel in public (as opposed to email), be sure not to repeat or explain the material you are asking to have revdel'ed! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. This could be useful at need: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC) I see, so the mystery material was not oversight fodder. I'll try WP:AN next time. If that works within a reasonable amount of time, one post there is certainly easier than four posts on four user talk pages. And the responding admin can add a comment so that nobody else wastes precious seconds looking into it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: Yes, actually ANI gives you the email of Oversight for BLP violaitons that need to be deleted. I just followed the instructions there. Also sent you an email. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC) So some of you did email the oversighters? I will be curious to know if (and when) you get a reply. Meanwhile, a suggestion has been posted above that there is a dedicated IRC channel for revdel requests. That could get you a response in real time. --MelanieN (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN: I did email the oversighters and will let you know if I hear back. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede/& Election section

I noticed the lede seems to bury the fact that Donald Trump has been elected President without holding any prior elected office and this fact is completely missing from the Election section. Instead, the emphasis there is on the Electoral College. Being a non-politician was a significant factor, and campaign issue, during the primaries and general election as it separated him from the professional politician class. The first sentence in the lede calls him a politician and is misleading, as he never was that. This makes it more imperative that the first lede sentence should include the fact that he is only the fifth person elected to the presidency who has never held prior elected office. The others are Zachary Taylor, Ulyssess S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive 40 discusses a different point of the lede, that of avoiding bad redundant prose in the first paragraph (and only the first 2-3 sentences if the paragraph becomes long). You can dispute the contents but I have decided to withdraw from that fight and from the entire article except to concentrate on one matter, to avoid redundant prose. (see how bad redundant prose is, I just did it) Trump's only claim to being a politician is being president making it redundant and bad prose to include it in the same sentence. 2 sentence allows a plausible (not saying if weak or strong) argument that "president" in a separate sentence is more detailed explanation of the other sentence mentioning politician. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This really makes sense if you are an English teacher and know how to right swell (write well). Chris H of New York (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You will find that information in the fourth paragraph of the lede. "At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or governmental service." That wording was chosen after an extensive discussion and is listed at the top of this page under "Current consensuses and RfCs". --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for pointing out that the information was missing from the Election section. I have added the details there, with a reference. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That's good for the election section. But I do feel that at this point, and given the significance of a non-politician in this day and age being elected to the presidency, that the mention could be adjusted to be very clear about it and also mentioned right away in the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-politician is just a "talking point". Lots of politicians try to understate connections to politics. I think it's fine. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

He is only the 5th non-office holder to be elected to the presidency in U.S. history. That seems significant. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

He's the first person so old, and the first person so rich, to become president. And the first president-elect who was previously neither in the military or civilian side of government. This is all handled well in the lead as-is. Firsts are more important than fifths.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the lead sentence is misleading because Trump only became a politician by running for president. He had dabbled with political statements earlier but that doesn't make him a politician: not only didn't he serve in any government capacity, but he simply never ran for office, despite the buzz in previous election cycles. Now, there were several discussions about Trump's qualifiers and some people feel strongly that he should be defined as a politician because he does politics now, while some others feel just as strongly that he should not be called a politician. I don't see an easy way to get consensus there. My preferred wording would be something like Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, and the President-elect of the United States, scheduled to take office on 20 January 2017. He was elected on November 8, 2016 following an outsider campaign which was his first attempt at gaining political office. Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 06:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend simply deleting the word "politician" as redundant, since anyone elected president is a politician. As for running an "outsider" campaign, I think that's unnecessary given that we already say in the lead that he's never held any position in government.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. Chris H of New York (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, I agree, and I would like it to also say, "he is only the fifth person never to have held elected office before being elected to the presidency." That is a significant and extremely notable for a total non politician to do this. Also, I come down on the side that he was not a politician and, really, still isn't. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There has already been a long debate about whether he was a politician, and the consensus, before he became president, is that he was. There is no point in rerunning that argument now...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Except he was never a politician and that consensus is past. We need a new one. He did not fit the definition of a politician, and when asked he always said he was a businessman, and reliable sources called him that as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What he says about himself is not relevant. People often claim they aren't what they are, or vice versa. He is extremely active in politics. Just as an aside, the Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a politician [45]. Objective3000 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that saying he is a politician is redundant, since he is only a politician because he is the President-elect and we already say that. It would only be justified if he had held other elected positions that were not mentioned. For example, while we mention in the first sentence that Barack Obama is a politician, we do not mention until several paragraphs later that he was a state senator and U.S. senator. While I think it would be tendentious to say he is not a politician, this seems like hypercorrection. TFD (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There exist different levels of politicians and different kinds of businessmen. The first sentence gives general classifications, which are later refined. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with @The Four Deuces: on this. You can schmooze politicians all day long and work a room, that doesn't make you a politician. He was real estate developer. He had to work the room to get permits, variances, tax abatements, all that, but a politician is somebody who holds elective office. Trump never has done. And then to mention that he is only the 5th person a elected to the presidency who never held elected office makes no sense if you start straight off the bat calling him a politician. That sounds like POV editing. The entire campaign was about being an outsider. And you know, Barack Obama was a community organizer for a long time before he ran for the Illinois state house. He was in the legislature. So by then, it would be appropriate to call him a politician, but not before he took office. And I'm sure as a community organizer, he had to work a room, and know all the politicians, and do the schmoozing, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What his campaign was about is not relevant. He has been heavily engaged in politics since he announced. Indeed, during his presidency, he really isn’t supposed to be conducting any business. He is now a politician. Just as Bloomberg is now a politician and, having returned to his business, also a businessman. Objective3000 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000:, I can see your point. Having won the election, he's in the thick of it now. You have the game, you have the name. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people seem determined to say that he "isn't a politician", but what does BushTrump himself say?

• "You know, I was a very good businessman. Now I am a politician. We will find out if I'm a good politician." --Donald Trump, August 2, 2015[46]
• "But I guess when you're running for office -- I hate the term politician as it relates to myself. I have never been. I have only been a politician for three months. But, you know, I guess that's what I am right now, unfortunately." -- Donald Trump, September 1, 2015 [47]

If he calls himself (or reluctantly admits that he is) a politician, by what possible logic can we omit that from the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, we're not going to eliminate it from the lede. Just sorting things. The quotes are helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm sure you mean Trump not Bush and your fingers slipped . I took the liberty of striking it for you, blatantly ignoring WP:TPO; hope you don't mind. — JFG ^talk 06:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Mental lapse. --MelanieN (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Surely you had a low-energy day… — JFG ^talk 09:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for proposal

The key to resolving this dispute is recognizing that Trump's life has three major themes: real estate, television and politics. He has been active in real estate for 5 decades, in television for 12 years and in politics for a year and a half (discounting some occasional political statements made earlier to journalists, when he never actually ran for office). Following those facts, I believe the lead sentence should include those three themes in order of weight in Trump's life, viz.

Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality and politician serving as the President-elect of the United States. (now)

Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality and politician serving as the 45th President of the United States. (as of January 20)

Can we agree on this and settle the lead sentence for good? — JFG ^talk 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The current version is this: "Donald Trump is an American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States, scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017." This seems preferable to the proposed version for several reasons, as follows. First, I don't think it's correct to say that he's "serving" as President-elect, because I'm not aware that a President-elect is employed by the federal government or draws any salary or has any legal duties, and the next milestone is on Jan. 6 when Congress meets to officially certify the results of the electoral college vote, overseen by Vice President Biden, as mandated by the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Second, I don't see why we shouldn't continue to mention that he will be the 45th President, and that he'll be sworn in on January 20. Third, we should speak in present tense about his professions, and so I don't think we have to worry about listing his professions chronologically. The only change that I recommend is to delete the word "politician" because it tells the reader nothing that is not already included in the fact that he is going to be president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: See amended version below, where "serving" is removed until inauguration. To answer your second point, this is just a proposal for the first sentence of the lead; the next sentence would still say He is scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017. The ordering of professions is still being debated below. — JFG ^talk 10:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I like your two versions, JFG, except that I don't like "serving as". I like the basic layout we have had for a long time, although the exact wording (businessman or real estate developer?) has often been tweaked. In the case of your chosen wording it would be "American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States." This follows the pattern of the Obama article: "is an American politician and the 44th and current President of the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• I firmly believe the current version (American politician, businessman, television personality, and PEOTUS) is absolutely correct. The order should not be "weight" according to what he has done in his life, but "weight" according to which are currently the most significant. The exception, of course, is the bit about being PEOTUS. I don't mind seeing "real estate developer" instead of "businessman", but the order should remain the same. I would be very opposed indeed to any change of this order, and I think most people support this order because it has been the most stable for quite some time. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I like it. It should be in the order he has lived his life. Real estate developer, television personality, and politician, and (on January 20) the 45th President of the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why should it be in the order he lived his life? Why not the order which is most biographically significant? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• On thinking it over I actually prefer Scjessey's version (which is also the current version), although I would also accept JFG's without the "serving as" language. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• It should be in the order he did things because politician is not his most biographically significant part of his life. Winning the presidency as a real estate developer is. For his entire life he has been a real estate developer. From age 5 when his father took him to work and put him up on a bulldozer. He wasn't a politician before running for the presidency. He's the fifth non-office holder to win the presidency. It's undue weight to call him a politician before all the accomplishments in his life. I doubt anyone would have voted for him had he not been first and foremost a real estate developer. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Trump is probably the second most powerful politician in the world and about to become the most powerful, and so the fact that he is a politician isby far the most biographically significant fact of his entire life as it stands right now. WP:WEIGHT talks about "prominence of placement", and given that the vast majority of reliable sources covering Trump discuss the act of running for president above anything else, by several orders of magnitude, it is clear that the rule is satisfied by putting "politician" first. Seriously folks, this shouldn't even be up for discussion. And didn't we do this already? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel right about it because his whole life before this run for the presidency was about his obsession with his real estate business. He was always on CNBC not NBC unless it was his reality show, The Apprentice, which is all about business. No, I would agree John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were politicians, and consummate at it, but not Donald Trump. Every book he wrote was about business, the art of the deal. He is a johhny come lately to politics. He went to Wharton, not for the prestige, but because they had a few courses on real estate where other B-schools did not. No, his whole life has been business, and it certainly shows. There is no reliable source prior to his run that establishes him as a politician. And btw, if you look closely at that coverage you're talking about, it refers to his being an "outsider," the non-politician, the non-office holder. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

While we were discussing, User:Chris H of New York unilaterally changed the lede sentence. It now reads "is an American politician, businessman, and television personality. He is President-elect of the United States and is scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017." I think we really need to agree on a wording and then lock it in; the lede has been changed multiple times a day for weeks now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Amended proposal

Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States. (now)

Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality and politician serving as the 45th President of the United States. (as of January 20)

I agree that "serving as" makes no sense during the transition. I imagine we can easily get consensus on replacing "businessman" by "real estate developer" and on keeping both "television personality" and "politician" as the key qualifiers. The only point of dispute remains the order. I stand by my position that real estate must come first. Leaving politician third is more correct with regards to Trump's whole life and it blends in more naturally with his eventual accession to the Presidency. Putting politician first gives the casual reader an impression that Trump was a career politician who managed real estate projects on the side, whereas the exact opposite is true. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. He's been in real estate his entire life. And you are right, the progression to politician and then the presidency is exactly how it happened. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If "politician" is at the end, then it will be smack next to president, which makes it even more obviously redundant. The word "politician" is not a very neutral word either. Per dictionary, one definition of a politician is, "2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: 'Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process' (John F. Kennedy)." That's from American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Or consider this dictionary definition: "2 ... b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons". Merriam Webster Dictionary 2011. You can hear in Trump's self-identification that he is certainly not boasting about being a politician.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Politician" is in the lede sentence, immediately adjacent to "XXth president of the United States", for pretty much all other presidents. It's not a redundancy, it's a definition. And regardless of whether Trump is proud of it or ashamed of it, he still admits that he is one. (Are we in the habit of putting into the lede sentence only descriptions that the subject himself would boast of?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, I still don't like "serving as". The format we have used during previous presidencies would suggest saying "Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States." Even better, "Donald Trump is an American politician, real estate developer, television personality, and the 45th and current President of the United States." --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In thinking about why I don't like "serving as" the president: aside from it being a departure from what we usually say, it almost seems to be a way to try to distance ourselves from saying/confirming/admitting that he IS the president. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, That's because those presidents were all politicians. Trump's situation is unique, Merriam Webster, notwithstanding. This is a different case. He wasn't a politician, he held no elective office, he did not spend his life seeking political office. "Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States." SW3 5DL (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many "ands". Try "and currently the 45th...." Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, "45th and current" would be more compatible with the way we have done previous presidents. SW3, he may not have been a politician up until two years ago - but he is one now, by his own admission. But I really don't care where in the sentence "politician" goes, I will accept it either first or last. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I like last in order to show all that came before he got there. Also, Melanie, on the prior military service or governmental service, governmental service doesn't mean elected office. I commented in another thread about that. People can perform governmental service through appointed, not elected office. The importance for Trump is that he's never held elected office before being elected president. That's really very rare. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We discussed all this before, as you know; see consensus #8. "Never held elected office" is pretty rare: he is the fifth. "Never held any government office at all" is more rare: he is the third. "Has neither government nor military experience" is unique; he is the first. That's why it goes in the lede. (Also, that is the point that Reliable Sources emphasized.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. That's fine with me then. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer this:

Donald Trump is an American politician, real estate developer, former television personality and President-elect of the United States.

I continue to believe "politician" is by far the most significant biographical detail, because that is what he is currently. Note the addition of "former". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As has already been discussed at length, his entire life is as a real estate developer. He's only been a politician for 18 months. It upends the apple cart to pretend the last 65 years didn't happen. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think "former" is a good addition and I am going to take the liberty of adding it to the article even though this discussion is ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I know what you think about it. I just strongly disagree. The most significant thing should appear first, and going by the preponderance of reliable sources it should be "politician". I'm sure Trump and his supporters don't like that he is now a politician, but that's just the way it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey:, I think it's really due weight. His life has been as a non-politician. This isn't about what Trump and/or his people would want. He admits he's now a politician. But it was only because he had to run for office as a party member, in this case the Republican party, that qualifies him as a politician. ". . .real estate developer, former television personality, politician and 45th president of the United States." SW3 5DL (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

But due weight refers to coverage in reliable sources, not how long. He is currently a politician and the sources all support this overwhelmingly. He is first and foremost a politician because he's been elected to arguably the highest level of political office in the world. Not having politician first is illogical. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he has a lifetime of reliable sources that call him a real estate developer. You want to isolate the last 18 months. That's not due weight, that's POV. And you are ignoring completely that the reliable sources also called him the outsider because he was not a politician. For that matter, his lede sentence could well say, "businessman, former reality television star, and political outsider. . . SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Some teacher (usernamen), maybe in Germany, raises a good point about politician and President as redundant but the "serving as" version fixes that. Some may look at it as an odd sentence. My vote is the redundancy issue is real, serving as is ok with me with the footnote that it is slightly unusual. My suggestion is to add "politician" on January 19, 2018 because he would have been president a year, fully enough to offset his claim of not being a politician. He certianly isn't a career politician with previous offices. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Remaining issues

I think we are this close to agreement on the lede sentence. As I see it there are two issues remaining. Let's isolate them and make a simple up-or-down statement to see how close we are to consensus (while continuing to discuss in the section above). --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Should "politician" come first or last in the description in the lede sentence?

• I will accept consensus either way on this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If politician is included, it should go first, because it is much more obviously redundant if it's immediately before "president".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Another good point. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Note also that no matter how long he lives, he will be called President Trump. Objective3000 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But, including "politician" is completely redundant. Here's what reliable sources say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Last – From a biographical standpoint, it makes a lot more sense because he turned politician just before his accession to the presidency vs 5 decades in real estate and 12 years on TV. The claimed redundancy of "politician and President" doesn't bother me because "politician" is an activity and "President" is a position. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we call him a "real estate developer" or a "businessman"?

• I prefer "businessman" because it encompasses all his other non-real-estate activities (and because that's how he always describes himself), but I will accept either. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Businessman is broader, so better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I’m not sure it’s accurate to say real-estate developer is most of his business career. Trump Airline, Trump clothing, Trump Mortgage, Trump Ice, Trump Winery, Trump Steaks, GoTrump (travel agency), Trump Vodka, Trump the Game, Trump Magazine, Trump University, USFL, Tour de Trump (bike races), Trump on the Ocean (restaurant/catering), Trump Network (nutritional supplements), Trumped! (radio show), The Apprentice, The beauty pageants, Trump New Media (video-on-demand and ISP). He certainly developed real-estate, although most of the buildings that sport his name were not developed by him. His primary business appears to be branding. That certainly makes him a businessman. But, US President seems to trump (sorry) all the rest. Objective3000 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a very valid point. Businessman would seem to be the logical choice here, although I would argue we could add "vexatious litigant" and a few other choice examples of negative nomenclature. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• He is (was?) first and foremost a real estate developer: he has lived and breathed real estate his whole life. All the Trump-branded ventures you list were marginal except The Apprentice franchise. Most of them were operated by others and are now closed, whereas Trump's real estate empire is here to stay, probably under his children's management. Therefore, "real estate developer" is a more accurate description of Trump's business career than the generic "businessman" descriptor. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I agree. I do believe that is what he is known as. These other businesses are simply a way to extend his brand. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The bit about being redundant to say politician before president makes no sense. President Obama's BLP says "American politician and the 44th president. . .". He is first and foremost a real estate developer but businessman will work. . SW3 5DL (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Obama BLP is not a reliable source. Here's what reliable sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up

This discussion kind of died out. We are close to consensus, except that the "where to put the word politician?" question is still unresolved. I propose we just leave the lede sentence as it is for the next week, and concentrate instead on what it's going to say after January 20. It would be nice to get an actual consensus so we can add it to the "consensuses" list above and stabilize the article. We seem to have two proposals:

• A. Donald Trump is an American politician, businessman, former television personality, and the 45th and current President of the United States.
• B. Donald Trump is an American businessman, former television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

Please comment below. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason it has come down to the politician bit is that nobody's agreed on the due weight. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And what is YOUR opinion? --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• B ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• A - WP:WEIGHT does not apply here, since it refers to inclusion/exclusion (everyone has agreed on inclusion) and prominence (moving it around within a phrase doesn't really change its prominence except in the minds of people who seem convinced he isn't a politician). So it boils down to convention (most politicians on Wikipedia have "politician" first in their descriptions) and current status (he will have actively stepped away from his business affairs to focus on being a full-time politician). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• B. This is who Donald Trump is. Becoming a politician was simply a means to an end. Being in the political arena was not something he spent his life doing. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• B but drop "and current" for the sake of simplicity. I also would like a discussion on replacing "businessman" with the more precise "real estate developer". There have been valid arguments both ways and I'm not convinced this is settled yet. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"45th and current" seems to be our standard practice; you will observe it currently at Barack Obama. "Businessman vs. real estate developer" was the other "not yet settled" remaining issue I identified in the section just above this one. That discussion mostly favored "businessman" (4 to 2, one of which was you) so I was hoping we could move on from that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: "and current", the wording is clumsy, and a sample size of one cannot be considered "standard practice"; the presidential transition is a good time to simplify this formulation. Re: "businessman" vs "real estate developer", I'm fine with keeping "businessman" now for the sake of expediency, however I would probably want to launch a wider debate after the inauguration. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Current is not at all necessary. He'll be the only 45th. There's no other 45th to come before or after him. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• B (weakly) - I didn't see any guidance on order of titles from WP:BLP or WP:LEAD, and would tend to list positions in order of perceived importance except that (1) he just doesn't feel like firstly a politician or predominantly one, and (b) I did see counter-examples at Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono and Ross Perot of people known for other things than being a politician did not list it first in their Bio. Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@MelanieN: It is possible this has been forgotten because it is so far up the talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I have posted a note at the bottom of this page, calling attention to this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Trump Organization leadership onto non-officeholder template?

So the previous discussion mainly evolved around whether it was appropriate to use the "officeholder" infobox template to list Trump's chairmanship at the Trump Organization as an office. Since Edge3 switched it into the current non-officeholder template however, I feel that there is now applicable to add the Trump Organization on the infobox as I have shown here. This edit, however, was removed by RedBear2040 citing "no consensus". So is it possible to get an agreement going here to implement it for good? I also am aware of the ongoing RfC on this topic, but that was in the context of the "officeholder" template that was still being used, so it has become a little irrelevant to me. Thanks. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Chairman and President of The Trump Organization
Occupation	Real estate developer
Years active	1971–present
Preceded by	Fred Trump
Known for	Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago
Net worth	$4.5 billion
Books	Trump: The Art of the Deal
Television	The Apprentice
Website	trump.com

Looks greats. Well done. I support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Very neat and professionally made. I as well support this. Archer Rafferty (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

But Trump is better known as president-elect of the U.S. and from Jan. 2016 (although I do not have a crystal ball) will be better known as president of the U.S. and in all likelihood will resign his positions at the Trump Organization. TFD (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - as it's not a political office. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: my understanding is that Bokmanrocks01 has created this to use for the business portion of the infobox which will be the politician's infobox with this inserted into it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, but I still oppose it. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's visually unappealing because of the myriad of random information crammed in, and it looks no different than a typically infobox for an office holder. It makes no difference. RedBear2040 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I submit that adding an entire new section to the infobox makes it look a lot different from a typical infobox for an officeholder. I further submit that that is precisely the point of adding it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Chairman and President of The Trump Organization
Occupation	Real estate developer
Years active	1971–present
Preceded by	Fred Trump
Known for	Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago
Net worth	$4.5 billion
Books	Trump: The Art of the Deal
Television	The Apprentice
Website	trump.com

If coloration aka 'blending in' is a problem, one advantage to the WP:OUTBOX is that we can control how subections look. Instead of following the pale-blue style of the infobox_officeholder we can use distinct colors, if we wish. Example using linen to the righthand side. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Even if he resigns TTO, he will have been head of it for 45 years. The infobox summarizes his entire life, and he will forever be far more businessman than politician, regardless of what he's better known for. The goal of the article is to tell readers what they don't know. It should be emphasized that the business chunk would go below the president chunk, as in this revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – It is clearly not a political position but it is also clearly the dominant aspect of Trump's life and career. Inclusion is a no-brainer. Format looks acceptable, although I would still prefer using standard modules (can be tweaked properly after consensus for inclusion is established). — JFG ^talk 06:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As long as it doesn't use the word "office" when talking about his business dealings, I'm okay with it. It is absolutely essential that "office" not be used in the context of his business dealings or it will confuse readers who associate the word with politics. As long as that is the case, I really don't matter which template we adapt to the task. That said, so many business people go on to be politicians I'm surprised a template for such does not already exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It solves the problem of being a non-office holder/businessman. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see how this changes the consensus of not incluing his business position as a political office, since it is still presented as such in this WP:OUTBOX. Also, this infobox is very arbitrary. Why should "Occupation", "Books", "Television" and "Net worth" all be incorporated into The Trump Organization? Surely his wealth doesn't come solely from his businesses. And even if it does, this seems more like general biographical data than position-related data. Also, how is he known only for Trump Tower and Mar-a-lago? What about the Chicago and LV hotels? This is really arbitrary, and I believe things like books and notable businesses shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's best to keep it as simple and concise as possible. This just seems excessive to me. κατάσταση 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would have been more useful to omit the example. As I see it, a consensus in this RfC to include the TTO section would not represent a consensus for all of the details in the example. If we approached it as all-or-nothing, as "the section is set in stone until there is a new RfC consensus", I think it's obvious that no consensus would be possible, as there would be far too many permutations. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There's currently no consensus for the Outbox or the addition of Trump's organization. Why are these things being constantly added to the article. Ramming stuff into the article (over & over) doesn't get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The purpose of fields in the info-box is to provide key information. So a key piece of information for Barack Obama is that he is president of the U.S. But what is the Trump Organization? It's the company owned by Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support I started this section to address the objections against adding the Trump Organization as an "office". The format used here does not use the word "office" nor imply that it is one. It describes Trump's position at his company, while at the same time giving the emphasis that was also needed to highlight the importance of Trump's business career in the infobox. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support As I previously stated, it is benefical to the article as a whole and neatly details Trump's former occupation before becoming President. Archer Rafferty (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only is this completely uncommon to everybody but Trump, but it's also incredible unappealing visually to include in the infobox. It looks too similar to the office holder infobox, as Katastasi pointed out. This is very arbitrary, does not add any relevant information to the infobox, and just doesn't make any sense to add it. RedBear2040 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It looks visually appealing to me. Moreover, the subject is "known for Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago", whereas he's not so well known - at least, not to me - for his "hotels in Chicago or Las Vegas". --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary clutter. Naue7 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per my arguments in the prior RfC on this topic. Trump is not a typical politician, so we shouldn't feel constrained by the limitations of {{Infobox officeholder}}. His business career is a significant part of his biography, and plays a large part in his rise to the presidency. His leadership of The Trump Organization must be displayed prominently on the infobox. Edge3 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, Trump's business career (wealth) and tv/book/etc exposure (fame) are not merely key events in his pre-2016 life, they explain how he became POTUS. Infobox is supposed to summarize the key points, and if template-syntax or wiki-precedent at other articles prevents that, WP:IAR demands we use a workaround-syntax (at least until the templates can be upgraded to accommodate what this article needs) to give the readership the best data that we possibly can for *this* unique article. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is all covered in the "Donald Trump series" below the infobox. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• oppose until someone here can explain what his corporate structure is. He seems to be CEO or general partner to hundreds of Trump related companies, which often own each other. It is not so straightforward as CEO of Trump Organization. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just a bunch of random info that looks unappealing for the future POTUS.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support. When we first decided to use the WP:OUTBOX method, this specific part of the box was in the final draft. Trump has been the chair of this organization for nearly 45 years, and it needs to be known easily without diving into the article that he led the organization before being elected 45th President. As a comparison, see Ronald Reagan's info box, which lists him as president of the screen actors guild. If differentiation between "a political office" and "a business position" is so important, then just colorize the background to distinguish it. The info box is almost always the first thing that catches a reader's eye on a biography. If the problem is that it "takes too much space", all we need to do is trim down the information in it. Regardless, the position should stay. Presidents of the United States should have VERY detailed info boxes. In my opinion, not only does it aesthetically enhance the article, but I think adding it is a net gain to the efficiency of conveying important information to a reader. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Outbox, Strong support for including Trump Organization in infobox officeholder. I haven't gone through the full extent of the discussions on this matter, but my impulse is to simply use the apparatus that we know best and has worked best (officeholder) and just add this major part of the man's life to it. I don't think a casual reader is so aware that "officeholder" predominantly refers to political offices, and I think the notion that they will mistake the Trump Organization for being one simply based on his term dates being referred to as "in office" is frankly ridiculous. They are not stupid. His lack of prior public experience is woven into almost every election-related article and can be easily included in the lede prose alongside the infobox itself. It's also a link itself, should they have never heard of it and desire more information. I don't think hanging up on the word "office" requires all this bending over backwards with colors and section splitting to hand-hold a few readers in an abundance of caution. Bend the rules just a tiny bit for the incoming POUTS (like so, so many American political articles have done differently from most other nation's politicians' pages over the years, and in more extreme ways) and just add it to officeholder. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Update I just want to say that if we fail to reach a consensus on adding this section to the infobox, it would be best to use the officeholder infobox again since it would be pointless to continue to use WP:OUTBOX without the special purpose of adding this specific section. Trump's TTO chairmanship would be listed under "occupation" as it was before. I'm sure everybody here would agree? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

I haven't checked the recent history of this article, but whoever is continuing to add extra info the infobox, would they PLEASE STOP IT. Leave the infobox relatively the same as those of the US Presidents bios from Washington to Obama & the US Vice Presidents bios from Adams to Biden & soon Pence. PS - I suspect that WP:RECENTISM is behind these attempts at original designs to this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Non mea culpa, but forming a lasting consensus is more important to me than what happens to the infobox in the interim. I generally favor the concept of status quo ante, but it can get extremely difficult to decide what that is. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency can be an albatross. Partly for the sake of 'consistency' we make no mention of FDR's 3rd and 4th election-campaigns in his lede-paragraphs (per JFG research above on this talkpage), yet perhaps the most unique and important factoid about FDR is that he was POTUS four times (FDR's decision to run in 1940 was arguably the most important single political campaign-decision of the 1900s). Similarly, for the sake of 'consistency' we make no mention of Reagan's acting career in his infobox, though without that name-recognition and fame, it seems completely implausible that Reagan could ever have become the governor of California (let alone the head of the SAG union), and from there, POTUS. Rather than seek consistency-of-format, aka ever infobox_officeholder being the same and looking the same for all the presidency-biographies, it is far more important to seek consistency-of-purpose. Guideline says, "to summarize... key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ...wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." What are the key facts about Trump's life? That he became POTUS is #1 with a bullet, surely. But his billions made in real estate are #2, because without largely self-funding his way through the primaries, #1 would not have happened. His brand-promotion work in television/books/tabloids is #3, because without his celebrity and his knack for earned media coverage, far more than all his rivals in both major parties and all third parties, once again Trump would probably never have become POTUS. Thus, for consistency-of-purpose, which is to say in order to summarize the key facts in shorthand, we need the infobox to say that Trump is POTUS-elect, that he is a billionaire real estate developer, and that he has done a lot of Trump-brand-promotion over the decades in tv/book/news publications which made him a celebrity. Famous + rich = potus, those are the three key factoids that the infobox needs to cover. For the sake of 'consistency' with our other articles, we can also say that Trump attended U.Penn, but that is a very minor aspect of his life methinks. On that same basis, I would not support adding "small business owner and rancher and wood-salesman" to the GWB infoxbox, because that is not why he became POTUS, he was nominated then elected mostly on his name and fundraising-network (much as Jeb was not nominated thanks to that same name and despite that same fundraising netowrk). Bloomberg article does need to mention his billions on Wall Street, they are key factors in his success as a politician in New York, just as Hillary Clinton's success as a politician in New York was due to her political-backstory more than any other factor. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well said. +1 — JFG ^talk 01:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What to include/exclude

Chairman and President of The Trump Organization
Occupation	Real estate developer
Years active	1971–present
Preceded by	Fred Trump
Known for	Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago
Website	trump.com

For those opposing, the inclusion of what is perceived to be arbitrary information in the proposed infobox section such as "Occupation", "Books", "Television" and "Net worth", as pointed out by Katastasi, is a major point of concern. I think that "occupation" is necessary to specify that Trump is in the real-estate business as chairman of TTO, but I am willing to leave out "Books", "Television", and "Net worth" since I do agree that it does not directly connect with Trump's post at his company. Hopefully this will ease concerns of having a "cluttered" infobox section. As Mandruss pointed out, this RfC is on whether to add this infobox section or not; the details of what info to include can be decided later. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the trimming. Net worth should remain in the "personal" section of the box. Books are in the {{Donald Trump series}} sidebar just below, so no need to repeat them here. TV activity at The Apprentice is a large part of his life, so I feel it deserves a place in the infobox, although that is not related to his real estate business, so must be elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All of this information is something that should be included in the personal section of the infobox or not at all. "Occupation," "years active," and "website" should all be in the personal section already, and "preceded by" should only be included if it's an office or something comparable. As far as "known for" goes, I believe it's safe to say that now he's most known for being the incoming President of the United States. To put that he's known for Trump Tower would be like saying Ronald Reagan is known for his role in Bedtime for Bonzo or that George W. Bush is known for owning part of the Texas Ranger. It is an important part of his life, but it will now be overshadowed permanently by his service as Commander in Chief. The issue essentially boils down to the fact that, even though his infobox technically isn't an officeholder infobox, including "Chairman and President of The Trump Organization" in the infobox under what will soon say "45th President of the United States" looks like an office position, and the fact that current proposition is not visually appealing because it is extremely cluttered with information that would be best suited for later in the actual article. His career as a businessman is an important part of his life. That goes without saying. However, history will remember him, for better or for worse, as the 45th President of the United States. RedBear2040 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

this RfC is on whether to add this infobox section or not; the details of what info to include can be decided later. - In that case, why are we discussing it in this RfC? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to let the editors opposing it know that the example I showed of the TTO infobox section isn't by any means the final result. There were concerns that it looked "cluttered" and that it included "arbitrary information", so I just wanted to let people know that the section can be improved by adding/removing certain parts. It might get more editors to support. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The way to get more editors to support is to state that they can ignore the actual contents of the example box, that that is not within the scope of the RfC. Not to open a discussion subsection about said contents. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks better. True, the RfC is about the section, not the details, but perhaps the details should be taken into consideration as well. Regardless, I'm still against including the section at all, but trimming it is a viable option. κατάσταση 03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In drafting the 'business career' portion of the proposed outbox, I mostly followed the content of Template:Donald_Trump_series, which mentions his

• businessCareer + CEO + realEstate*31 + otherBiz*4 + legalAffairs, for a subtotal of 38 bluelinks
• politicalPositions + presidency*8 + campaigning*7, for a subtotal of 16 bluelinks
• eponyms + television*3 + books*3, for a subtotal of 7 bluelinks
• family + foundation + sexlife, for a subtotal of 3 bluelinks

My goal was to concentrate on the key ideas, the examplars (art of the deal + apprentice + trump tower) in the various subgroups. I did not break out golfcourses separately from his other real estate, however, though the template does. I don't much care what exact specifics we end up with in the infobox, but I would like the infobox to reflect the lede-sentence which is currently causing so much consternation: American billionaire real estate developer, television celebrity, ('author' maybe also included though it seems unlikely), and POTUS-elect (plus optionally also 'politician' though for the infobox we can ignore that redundancy). I don't care about the exact phrasing, as much as I care about summarizing the three key points: wealth + fame + potus. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hair

WP:NOTAFORUM - Wow, that was fun. Now get back to work building an encyclopedia. <whip crack sound effect here> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 06:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the hair may be a result of the hair spray. Do we have sources for this?71.35.2.57 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I'm pretty sure hair grows on a head all by itself. I have seen other people with hair. It is fairly common. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I can personally attest that hair grows on a head that has never received a whiff of hair spray (and think about it: some babies are born with hair). I realize this is original research. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) You're right about babies. I personally know two babies who were born with hair on their head, and, both had bare feet. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Confirmed. Many human worm babies are birthed with a full head of hair. This one even has hair resembling Trump's. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I hope you meant 'warm babies,' I don't know any worm babies, but your warm human baby is adorable. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Human worm babies" is a reference to Invader Zim. It's pretty obscure, but I like to throw things like this into my comments from time to time to see if anyone picks up on them! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC) The reference to Invader Zim was great. I really love throwing around the phrase "human worm babies" for the same reason. RedBear2040 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Knowing Simon's politics, I thought he was referring to Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think his hair should be mentioned as it has been covered by multiple reliable sources.

I am planning to work this into Donald Trump hair. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References

@Emir of Wikipedia: There used to be a full article about The Donald's hair, which was rightfully deleted. The section in the pop culture page is the appropriate place to document whatever is notable enough beyond pure WP:TRIVIA. Keep it light, by the grace of whichever God! — JFG ^talk 01:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rephrasing

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The lead says: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton." I plan to rephrase slightly: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes versus Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than she did."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Why do you think that's an improvement? I don't. "versus Hillary Clinton" is really awkward. "a majority of electoral college votes" says all that needs to be said. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Perhaps this is less awkward: "Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes." I think this is the best way to introduce Clinton in the lead, instead of via a legally irrelevant factoid about the popular vote. The lead would then say "He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than she did."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I agree that the factoid about popular vote shouldn't be the way to introduce Hillary Clinton into Donald Trump's bio; now that the electoral hysteria has died down, we can leave this to the election page itself, and to Clinton's bio because that is her achievement. Also, every US president has by definition gained a majority of the Electoral College votes (nitpicking about a dead President-elect aside), there is nothing unusual about this and it frankly looks awkward to spell it out (as if WP had to justify the legitimacy of the electoral process). What is unusual is that his victory was a surprise (the article has lots of detail supporting this, and the lead should summarize the article). So my proposal would be simply: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Thoughts? — JFG talk 09:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Sure, that seems fine to me. We can use that sentence instead of "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton." I support leaving in (at least for now) the brief statement later in the lead about Trump being the fourth president elected with less than a plurality because that's more about him than her.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Yes. Definitely an improvement JFG. I disagree about the "fourth president with less than a plurality" bit. It reads like a left-handed compliment. The bigger story is that he is the 5th person to not hold elected office before being elected to the presidency. That's far more relevant. The popular vote is not how America elects presidents. The bit about the popular vote can be in the election section, but it does not belong in the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC) The lead says, he's "the first without prior military or governmental service", which seems adequate to me, and I don't think the lead has to separately address how many presidents have lacked elective experience. In any event, the number five is incorrect (the correct number is seven in view of Washington, Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Disagree. In fact, Trump himself disagrees - he, in fact, called for a revolution when he (mistakenly!) believed Obama hadn't won the popular vote?! The "fourth president with less than a plurality" is clearly more significant than "the fifth person to not hold elected office". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC) The popular vote is not how America elects presidents. In the 2000 Bush-Gore election, it came down to the state of Florida, not because the votes there would put Gore further over the top in the popular vote, but because it would determine the one with the needed electoral college votes. It is not of due weight. However, electing a man to the office of the Presidency without having first held any elective office, for only the 5th time in America's history, is relevant, and has due weight. On the call for a revolution, you'll need reliable sources. Also, the wesal phrase, 'governmental service,' does not necessarily mean elected office. An Ambassador is not an elected office. An cabinet secretary is not an elected office. They've not run for any office. They are appointed. A supreme court judge is not elected either. But a senator or congressman, or mayor, governor, or even city councilman, is elected to office. SW3 5DL (talk9, 6 January 2017 (UTC) As mentioned, the number five is incorrect (the correct number is six in view of Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Taft was appointed to a judgeship and then had to run for office to be reelected. He also held a cabinet position which was not an elected post, but still a government position, unlike Trump who has held no elected office, government post, or military position. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Interesting, I did not know that about Taft.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Anythingyouwant, I like this proposal: "Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than she did." --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC) (ec)What about "Trump defeated blah blah blah. . .by winning a majority of the electoral college votes, 306 to 232, while Clinton won the popular vote by XX% to Trump's XX%." I think readers are going to want to see numbers. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Needs a comma after "2016" per MOS. There's my contribution to this debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC) No, this goes down the slippery slope of election stats again. This is Trump's bio. He won this election, that's enough for the lead, let's keep it simple. Details are one click away. — JFG talk 00:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @JFG: Okay, what about, "Trump won the majority of the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency. Clinton won the popular vote. " SW3 5DL (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Support MelanieN's proposal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Benchmarking How do we treat other presidents' electoral victories in the lead section of their biographies? Franklin D. Roosevelt: During the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, Roosevelt defeated incumbent Republican president Herbert Hoover in a landslide to win the presidency. […] His support for the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 added to his popularity, helping him win re-election by a landslide in 1936. […] No mention of his third and fourth terms. Harry S. Truman: Truman was able to rally these groups of supporters during the 1948 presidential election and win election to a presidential term in his own right. Dwight D. Eisenhower: He won in a landslide, defeating Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson and temporarily upending the New Deal Coalition. […] No mention of his second term. John F. Kennedy: Kennedy defeated Vice President, and Republican candidate, Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. Presidential Election. Lyndon B. Johnson: He ran for a full term in the 1964 election, winning by a landslide over Republican opponent Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon: In 1968, he ran for the presidency again and was elected by defeating incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey. […] He was reelected in one of the largest electoral landslides in U.S. history in 1972, when he defeated George McGovern. Gerald Ford: (Never elected) […] He narrowly lost the presidential election to the Democratic challenger, then-former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, on November 2. Jimmy Carter: He was elected President in 1976, defeating incumbent President Gerald Ford in a relatively close election; the Electoral College margin of 57 votes was the closest at that time since 1916. Ronald Reagan: He twice ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency in 1968 and 1976; four years later, he easily won the nomination outright, becoming the oldest elected U.S. president up to that time, defeating incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980. […] During his re-election bid, Reagan campaigned on the notion that it was "Morning in America", winning a landslide in 1984 with the largest electoral college victory in history. George H. W. Bush: In 1988, Bush ran a successful campaign to succeed Reagan as President, defeating Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis. Bill Clinton: Clinton was elected President in 1992, defeating incumbent George H. W. Bush. […] Two years later, in 1996, Clinton became the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to be elected to a second term. George W. Bush: He was elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent. […] Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, in another relatively close election. Barack Obama: He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. […] Obama was re-elected president in November 2012, defeating Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2013. Donald Trump (current): Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump (proposed): Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Of 13 presidents and 21 elections, the victory is either mentioned neutrally (9 cases), as a close call (3 cases), or as a landslide (6 cases). Only Carter gets a mention of the EC votes. Three re-elections are not mentioned at all. In this historical context, Trump's election is neither close nor a landslide, therefore best described neutrally in terms of magnitude of the vote. The "surprise" qualifier is justified by unanimous RS coverage, by supporters and opponents alike. — JFG talk 01:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Surprise" (or "unexpected") is possible, but the electoral college popular vote (dang it, I keep doing this! Sorry.) also needs to be mentioned. It is mentioned in the lede in the George W. Bush article; that was the only time in your sample that it happened, so that looks to me like 100% inclusion. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN and JFG: What about, "Trump won the majority of the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency. Clinton won the popular vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC) User:SW3 5DL: In earlier discussions I believe we decided it was not appropriate to say that anyone "won" or "lost" the popular vote (even though reliable sources often do). The popular vote is not an actual contest with a winner and a loser. The appropriate wording would be some variation of "got a higher percentage of the popular vote", "received a smaller share of the popular vote", etc. - with no numbers in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN:, I can understand that for the popular vote because a candidate can't win the presidency with it. "He received fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton." "smaller share" sounds awkward to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "received fewer popular votes" sounds fine to me. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL and MelanieN: I'm flexible on most of this area, but not language. "Popular vote" is not a countable noun. One can't cast a popular vote. There is only one popular vote, the popular vote. Thus, there can't be "fewer popular votes". I believe that's why the "smaller share" thing came about. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC) I strongly support the way this stuff is presented in the lead right now, including that it was a "surprise" win, and including that Pres.-elect Trump is "the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, this looks like an acceptable version for all participants. Shall we call it consensus? — JFG talk 20:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @JFG: Which looks acceptable? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) The "current as of this comment" version of the whole paragraph is: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote. Calling for consensus on this. — JFG talk 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC) I agree. It's very concise and informative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC) This looks OK to me. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC) No objection (aside from preferring "opponent" to "rival"), but I wonder how durable the consensus will be in this unstructured format with maybe 5 or 6 particpants at best. It would supersede consensus #4 and reinforce #8? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure that #4 is really well-supported by the attached links (e.g. neither linked section uses the wording "smaller share"). Anyway, if you'd like an RFC then I'd have no objection, but it doesn't seem necessary to me. Both of the links are to Archive 37, which doesn't seem to show a previous RFC; what it does seem to show is a survey about modifying a version of this stuff in a particular way, and consensus against modifying was later assumed to mean consensus for the version without modification (I'm not sure that assumption was correct). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC) RfC doesn't seem necessary to me, either, but RfC is not the only way to get more structure and participation. Bulleted !voting provides structure; a heading clearly identifying it as a poll (preferably at the bottom of the TOC) attracts participants. I'm still not clear what you would do with #4. Options are to keep it or strike it with a note. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Okay by me if you set it up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I'll take that as an "I don't know" as to #4. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: Consensus #4 was attained as a compromise position when the debate was raging about the significance of electoral college vs popular vote and some editors insisted that Hillary Clinton had "won" something. Then we had the recounts and the faithless electors debacles. This is hopefully water under the bridge by now, so that the simpler phrasing here can supersede consensus #4. Benchmarking with prior presidents adds weight to the new formulation. Actually, we should keep the part of consensus #4 that mandates not to include election stats, because that received near-unanimous consensus in one of the linked discussions; the other discussion cited in #4 was much less clear-cut, and can be dropped now. Consensus #8 can be cited as a prior discussion supporting the amended phrasing here. In summary, we would have: 4. Do not quote numbers about the election result in the lead (EC votes, popular vote, states won, percentages, …) (link) 8. Keep the exact wording of the paragraph mentioning Trump's age, wealth, and lack of prior public service. (link 1, link 2, link 3) Agree? — JFG talk 08:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @JFG: Willing to try it, although I feel things getting messy, consensuses becoming less easily "verifiable", reducing the efficacy of the list. Probably unavoidable. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @JFG, MelanieN, Mandruss, and Anythingyouwant: I'm okay with it so long as it includes 'elective office' as in "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, or elective office, and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote." Elected office is not the same as governmental service as they could be a cabinet post or Ambassadorship. He's never held elective office and that needs to be mentioned, I feel, because it was part of his appeal to voters. I don't think it needs an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I'll take it to a poll when we have a sub-consensus in this sub-committee. Elective office is not the same as governmental service, but the latter is inclusive of the former. So it's both unnecessary and incorrect to say "governmental service or elective office". (Remember what we discussed about late ping.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: Actually, it really is not inclusive of governmental service, as 'service' does not imply elected. Never having held elected office was an appeal of Trump to voters and RS supports it. On the popular vote, I commented above.SW3 5DL (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Please see here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with Mandruss, and strongly oppose inserting "elective office" because it goes against consensus #8, and it sounds awful: "without prior military or governmental service, or elective office". What kind of elective office is not governmental service? This would just confuse readers. It's clear from the lack of "governmental service" that he never held elective office, and I never heard Trump say "vote for me because I never held elective office but may have held some other governmental office".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Now we're splitting hairs at the expense of good writing. If we need to convey that "Never having held elected office was an appeal of Trump to voters", we don't have to do it in this sentence. And we could do it far more clearly than by our choice of a few words in this sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Military service is governmental service, too, and not at all elected. Not having held elective office mattered to the voters. Specific language matters. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Military service is not what the ordinary reader thinks of when they read "governmental service". We have now achieved circularity. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I do not think the sentence needs all that. It's enough to say, and I believe has more meaning for the reader, "never held elected office." When I read 'military/governmental service" I think, meh. But never held elective office before becoming the president of the US? That's quite an accomplishment, and rare for voters to go along with it, even rarer still for a political party to go along with it, as evidenced by the vigor with which the Republicans tried to stop him. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) SW3, I am really disappointed to see you still hammering on this "elective office" point. I though you had agreed here that you accepted my logic for leaving it out, in favor of "governmental or military service". Yes, "not having held previous elective office" is rare (he is the sixth); but "not having held ANY government office OR military service" is not just rare, it is unique. I think you need to take a step back, and realize that you have not convinced anyone on this issue this despite bringing it up over and over. Consensus has to rule here, and sometimes consensus means we don't get exactly what we want. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC) That seems a bit harsh. I've been working deligently towards gaining consenus. This is process that gets honed, and input is necessary. Doesn't mean people can't change their mind or see a better way to say something. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC) You've been working diligently, yes - and you have not gotten consensus for your version. Despite your best efforts you have not convinced even a single person. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, and you can dissent from what is clearly becoming the consensus version here - but the consensus version is what is going to go into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. And note that the "elective office" does come up in the body of the text: "Of the 44 previous presidents, 39 had held prior elective office; 2 had not held elective office but had served in the Cabinet; and 3 had never held public office but had been commanding generals.[357]" --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Then it can come up in the body of the lede, and we add the governmental military bit in the body of the text. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC) And see what reliable sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Adding "elective office" is superfluous and bludgeons the sentence. Also, I doubt that voters specifically supported him for this reason; he was loved or loathed for being an outsider to the political system, i.e. playing no government role whatsoever (elected or appointed), while being well-acquainted with political figures (as a real estate developer in the trenches and as a wealthy donor to all sides). Thus I believe the phrasing properly represents the uniqueness of his candidacy. — JFG talk 07:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC) References Final tweak? The proposed paragraph ends with and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote, which sounds a bit cumbersome. I understand that "less than a plurality" is technically correct but it doesn't really speak to casual readers. I would suggest and the fifth elected with a lowersmaller share of the popular vote nationwide (similar to the Bush 43 formulation). The linked article provides all the details readers may crave. — JFG talk 09:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Smaller share. I want a big piece of the pie, not a high one. But I agree that your average high school grad shouldn't have to go another article or the dictionary to understand that particular sentence. Hell I'm 60 and I don't think I knew what "plurality" meant 5 years ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Right. Amended. — JFG talk 09:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Fewer votes in the general election. In America, there's the general election to determine which states are won to determine the winner of the electoral college. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: What on earth are you doing? You have eliminated all reference to popular vote, which is the whole point, while replacing that with language that is ambiguous as to electoral vs popular, while obliterating any trace of what it looked like before. I'm tempted to revert that series of edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I have restored JFG's proposed version which was " and the fifth elected with a lowersmaller share of the popular vote nationwide". SW3 5DL proposed replacing it with and the fifth elected to receive fewer votes in the general election. Let's discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: Sorry, I thought we were tweaking the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC) No harm done, although I still don't see the logic of your change. I still like the elimination of the word "plurality". And as long as we're discussing fine points, I question whether the word "nationwide" earns its keep. Would it be ambiguous without that word? If not the nationwide popular vote, what popular vote could we be referring to? We've all seen sentences developed to the point that they are completely accurate, completely precise, and completely unreadable. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) No, now the whole thing has gone off the rails again, because we make it seem like his opponent got a majority which she did not (and using the word "small" to describe his performance is very unflattering to boot). As for the word "national", yes it's critical because the popular vote in each state determined who won that state. Like it or not, the American system of electing a president is not something that can easily be detailed in a few words so it can be understood by kindergartners. Maybe the best thing would be to follow the Zachary Taylor example, and just say in the lead he was elected, and leave the details for later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I vaguely recall suggesting exactly that a couple of days ago and getting no support for the concept. It's probably the toughest sell of all. I'm at a loss as to where to go from here, but I don't think continued circular debate in this thread will be fruitful. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: Yes, I agree eliminating 'plurality' is best. Also, I thought you didn't like the term 'popular vote.' So I looked into it, and you are correct. Calling it the popular vote is misleading of the process. A popular vote in primaries will determine the winner of the primaries, but even then, the party convention has rules that can over turn that because here is someone representing their party, their platform. Then when they've settled on the candidate, he/she moves on to what is called the general election, where again, a so-called popular vote will determine who won the number of states necessary to reach 270 electoral votes. I'm fine with or without popular vote, whichever you prefer. But the sentence about winning the popular vote in the nationwide election, is a mouthful and not commonly used. It's called the general election. All the reliable sources, NYTimes, WashPo, CNN, HuffPost, Time, etc., call it the general election. I'm simply attempting to keep the phrasing simple and in line with the representative republic process that elects an American president. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the tutorial, but I understand the American presidential electoral process fairly well. General election is not a different way of saying popular vote, and they are not interchangeable. It would be nonsensical to say that Clinton received a larger share of the general election. Your phrase "fewer votes in the general election" is ambiguous because you don't specify whether that's fewer electoral votes or a smaller share of the popular vote (as I said above, there is only one popular vote). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I'm not trying to tutor you. Trump won the majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency, and is the fourth to be elected with fewer popular votes in the general election." SW3 5DL (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC) How about this “ Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth whose defeated rival received more of the national popular vote though less than a majority. ” I also want to mention that this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and numerous reliable sources use the word "plurality" in this context, see BBC, Washington Post, International Business Times, Real Clear Politics, et cetera. But I'm not wedded to the word "plurality" (i.e. we can alternatively go the Zachary Taylor route or instead something like what I've just suggested by blockquote). By the way, I have never edited Simple English Wikipedia, but you might be interested to read what its lead says about Trump's margin of victory: "He became the president-elect on November 9, 2016, after a close race with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Each of them needed 270 electoral votes to win. Trump earned 279 [sic], but Clinton had 228."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Well, I watched Vice President Joe Biden, in the combined House/Senate session, declare Trump had won 304 and Clinton 227. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Do you know what "sic" means?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry didn't notice you were quoting.SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: I appreciate that you are fighting for precision here, however the latest proposal is a mouthful, frankly. Let me give it one more try: A. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth who garnered fewer votes than his opponent nationwide. Or we ditch this thing entirely, but lots of people will scream… B. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or governmental service. Or, boldly moving the mention around again, so we can link to the article with historical details on similar cases: C. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, despite garnering fewer votes nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or governmental service. Take your pick! Why on Earth did I open a "final tweak" section? — JFG talk 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Of those three, I would definitely pick "B". The main problem with "A" and "C" is that they both leave readers with the impression that Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, which she did not, and they also leave open the possibility that she won the popular vote by 99% to 1% which she did not. I don't normally like parentheticals in a lead, but maybe we need them: “ Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth whose defeated rival received more of the national popular vote (though less than a majority). ” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Grammatically, "the first" and "the fifth" imply a noun following them, that noun brought forward from the preceding clause. As written above, that noun could only be "person", which would be incorrect (he is not the first person without prior military or governmental service). That fixed, and with other modifications: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC) User:Mandruss, I don't see why you insist on the word "small". What is your objection to saying "president whose defeated rival received more of the national popular vote"? And why is it useful to not merely imply (incorrectly) that Clinton received a majority of the popular vote, but to also leave open the possibility that she received 99% of it? Even Simple Wikipedia's lead says it was a close election. And why leave out the word "national" before "popular vote"? After all, there was a popular vote in each state that determined the electoral votes, and no one who lost the popular vote in any state received more electoral votes there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I've answered a lot of that previously. For example, I've already said Would it be ambiguous without that word? If not the nationwide popular vote, what popular vote could we be referring to? and I have not received a response. Clearly no reader is going to read that as Clinton winning every state's popular vote. How many reliable sources feel compelled to make that distinction? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Zillions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: Ok, seeing "national popular vote" multiple times in this Wikipedia article, I'll give you the word "national" back. As for your other objections, I don't feel the need to encapsulate everything about the election in this one sentence. Mandruss proposal 2: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received a smaller share of the national popular vote than his opponent. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC) User:Mandruss, at the end of the first sentence, please add "in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote". Otherwise, we are suggesting that she won a majority, perhaps as much as 99%. Why should we do that? (I would also replace "a smaller share" with "less" because it's much more concise and does not arguably denigrate).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant:Ok, so "smaller share" arguably denigrates but "less" does not, somehow. Size matters, especially in matters concerning Donald Trump. I'll try to remember that. Here you go. Mandruss proposal 3: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC) User:Mandruss, looks good to me. ("Smaller" has connotations of an absolute meaning (as in "small"), whereas "less" is relative and more concise.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC) On November 8, 2016, Trump won a surprise victory, defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth elected with fewer votes nationwide. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC) No, SW3, the "popular vote" is almost always the total of votes by individual citizens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC) There Is Only One Popular Vote. See Popular vote (representative democracy). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) fewer votes nationwide? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC) electoral votes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant:, do you want to say he won the electoral vote but won fewer votes nationwide? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I've already said (above) lots of way I would find acceptable. What I find unacceptable is for the lead to say or imply that Trump's performance in the election was "small[]", to say or imply that he didn't win the popular vote in any state, and to say or imply that Hillary Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote and may have even won 99% of it. I do not think these objections are unreasonable, and we can do better than that (even if we omit the word "plurality" which is used by lots of reliable sources, and omit numbers which are also used by lots of reliable sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Part of the problem may well be trying to jam too much in one sentence. It becomes clear as mud. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) On November 8, 2016, Trump won a surprise victory, defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump won a majority of the electoral college, while receiving fewer votes nationwide, and is only the fourth person elected to do so. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency and the first without prior military or governmental service.. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant:, I understand what you're saying, but the problem is the popular vote is concentrated in coastal states. It's true Trump won more states, and far more of the country than Clinton. Looking at the map, he beat her like a drum. If you take out California, he wins the so-called popular vote. The race in terms of popular vote is close. I don't know how to get all that in. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC) And N.B., I put in 'defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. . ." because of your prior concerns. I thought that would make it plain enough that she didn't win. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC) What needs to be added is that the election was so close that neither candidate won a majority of the national popular vote. Why is that so difficult to include? Why must we suggest that she might have gotten 99% of the popular vote? First people say we cannot use numbers to convey this info. Then people say we cannot use the word "plurality" to convey this info. Well, fine, convey it without numbers and without the word "plurality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC) That makes sense. Try writing all that in a sentence. How do you want it to read? And btw, I think we should have numbers. A number is worth a 1000 words. Maybe we should use plurality. It's wonky but it does condense the meaning to one word. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Like this: “ Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, in which neither candidate won a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president elected with less than a majority of the national popular vote than his opponent. ” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, I have a tweak I'd like to make. brb. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC) On November 8, 2016, Trump won a surprise victory, defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton . SW3 5DL (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Gents, we are back to trying to jam lots of facts into a sentence while keeping it readable, and most readers won't easily understand the subtle distinctions that we are making. Here is yet another avenue to be precise and concise, with a little note about the details: C2. Donald Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival candidate Hillary Clinton, despite garnering fewer votes nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service. How's that for a solution to our predicament? — JFG talk 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Notes @JFG: Hillary Clinton was a the Democratic candidate. Not a rival. A candidate, duly winning the primaries, and the convention vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Aye. — JFG talk 18:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Thx. And. . .the "despite garnering fewer votes nationwide." He didn't need to win the majority of votes nationwide. He only needed to win enough states to give him 270 electoral votes. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC) We all know this; however the lead of a candidate's bio is not the appropriate place to write a dissertation on the subtleties of the US presidential election process. We need to say something as neutral as possible about this "popular vote" fact. If "despite" sounds negative, we could use "while", but I think it fails to convey that there has been a controversy. All in all, I feel that this formulation best conveys the mood of the nation without offending either side: a clear but surprising victory, marred by unwillingness by the opposing side to accept the democratically-valid result. — JFG talk 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC) User:JFG, we're talking about the biggest political event in years, and the most surprising presidential election upset since 1948. I have never seen a note in a lead (as distinguished from a footnote), and even if it is allowed by MOS we should not be imposing a zillion constraints on this. Fine no numbers, fine no use of the word "plurality". But now I have to agree to not indicate it was a close election (except in a note that no one will read), and not indicate that neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote, and not indicate that HRC received less than 99% of the national popular vote? I cannot agree to that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC) There are two such notes in the lead of United States presidential election, 2016 and there's one in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. It's an elegant way to provide details without overloading the prose, and from experience it has withstood consensus. MOS has nothing against it, that I'm aware of. With regard to this being a close election, it really wasn't particularly outlandish. People who look at the states and electoral college say that Trump won handily, whereas people who look at the total ballots cast say that Clinton trounced him in the popular vote; we'll never be able to reconcile these positions. Bush / Gore was extremely close by both measures. — JFG talk 18:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Either a lead has notes and footnotes, or it doesn't. We either need to fully annotate this lead, or remove notes and footnotes. A hybrid lead does not work for me, with some things footnotes and others not. It looks sloppy, and I don't think it's consistent with MOS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) A hybrid lead does not work for me, with some things footnotes and others not. A hybrid lead? Obviously we can have as many notes as we need. If that's only one, that's not a problem; that doesn't make it a "hybrid lead". For Pete's sake, Anythingyouwant, you should change your username to Anythingbutwhatyouwant. If you "don't think it's consistent with MOS", prove it. I have no ideological objection to notes in the lead, and I can't think of any good reason for such an objection. That's a good compromise between no detail in the lead and all detail in the lead. Such a note could be expanded as desired with far less opposition. I think that's the right direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) There is absolutely no reason to have a non-footnote "note" attached to the lead, instead of simply putting details in the body of the article. I doubt you could find one single featured article or good article that has such a note in the lead, especially in leads that are not fully footnoted. You say I support "anything but what you want", but you know very well that I fully support your latest proposal. You also know very well that I've agreed to the silly rule against numbers in the lead, and the silly rule against the word "plurality" in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Ok, so I exaggerated a little. You're probably right, I probably couldn't find such an article, because (1) there is no practical way to do so, as you no doubt are aware, and (2) notes are fairly uncommon in general. That doesn't make notes a bad idea in the lead. We do what works best and we don't obsess over arbitrary rules, especially when they aren't even rules. Anyway, I could support either Mandruss proposal 3 or some note solution, I'm flexible. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: think he's just being disruptive at this point. He's not making any real contribution here. Notice he's not even trying to make edits that accommodate the other editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC) See WP:POT.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: How do you know he's a he? S/he asked you to explain your rationale for a change that neither of us understood, and your only response was about passive-aggressiveness and rabbit holes. That doesn't scream for accommodation, frankly. If you're at your frustration limit, take a break. I've probably said all I have to contribute for awhile, and I'm going to await comments from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: I'm going by his repeated criticism of the suggested edits. I've attempted to incorporate his desires. I'm confused by your comments about making a change nobody understood. The discussion has evolved quite a bit, can you please show a diff? If you read through the thread, can you show me where he's done anything to accommodate the others? From what I've been dealing with this morning, he seems intent on finding fault with every suggestion. I honed the thing as best I could, then he comes back with an edit from you. All of a sudden he's found satisfaction? In a talkquote that was from a good bit ago? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: Time to go to user talk, this is too much off topic. I'll come to you, give me 10 minutes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC) tweaking @JFG: Please let me know what you think of this below. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) IIn the November 8, 2016 general election, Donald Trump won a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes, while Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide vote. None of the candidates earned a majority of the ballots. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth elected with fewer votes nationwide.. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I thought the word "plurality" is verboten ruled out by extensive discussion. If we want to start allowing it, then we could have a much more concise paragraph, the way it is right now in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC) If you want to edit a comment after someone has already responded to it, please use strikethroughs and underlines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Call for consensus on Mandruss proposal 3: “ Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent. ” Can we agree on this? I think it's fine. It omits numbers as requested. It omits the word "plurality" as requested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC) No. It should say "defeated.' And please don't wall off my edit which I have spent all morning trying to accommodate your requests. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Where should it say "defeated" and why? I won't even ask why it's okay for you to install a subsection header but not me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I'm wondering if you are not here just to confound the process.SW3 5DL (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Where should it say "defeated" and why?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC) No, sorry not going down the passive-aggressive rabbit hole again. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I would guess that what you're saying is that the word "defeat" needs to somehow go into this sentence: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton...." But the sentence is grammatically correct without the word "defeat" and the word "defeat" adds nothing as far as I can tell. What do you think it adds? If you sincerely think it's somehow obvious what the word "defeat" adds, then I give up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC) The sentence in the talk quote doesn't say that, nor is it grammatically incorrect. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC) The Mandruss proposal (which you were criticizing) says exactly what I said it says: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Please see the talkquote I wrote. That's the only talkquote I'm talking about in all my posts here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Sheesh, I thought we were so close! JFG, I really appreciate your effort to summarize the previous discussion into proposed wording. That's what consensus building is all about. I have read all the proposals and I endorse Anything's latest version (which he described as the Mandruss proposal) in this subsection - as it is, no need to say "defeat" if it says he won. And please let's remain courteous and not accuse each other of bad faith. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) About the "Mandruss 3" proposal: the wording "in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote" sounds redundant with "who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent". Now we're saying twice that Trump "lost" the popular vote, whereas we have I believe editor consensus that this fact should not be given undue weight compared to his actual winning the election. Therefore I cannot endorse this version as it stands. I would ask fellow editors to please reconsider my C2 proposal, which sounds sharper while remaining balanced. — JFG talk 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss, JFG, and MelanieN: In the November 8, 2016 general election, Donald Trump won a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes, while Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth elected with fewer votes nationwide. What about that one? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I thought the word "plurality" is verboten already ruled out by lengthy discussion. If we want to start allowing it, then we could have a much more concise paragraph, the way it is right now in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Verboten" is not a very useful word here. I voiced what I thought was a cogent argument against "plurality", and I thought folks were convinced, but there is no consensus on the question. I can be overridden. Nothing is forbidden. Comparing "less of the national popular vote than his opponent" (my proposal 3) to "less than a plurality of the national popular vote" (status quo), I fail to see how the latter is "much more concise". My version has the same number of words (9) and one more character (51). If the status quo is "much more concise" overall, it isn't because it uses the word "plurality". Upon request, I can enumerate the reasons why I like my prop 3 far more than the above proposal. I think most of my reasons are already known from my previous comments, and I would prefer not to repeat myself yet again. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC) User:Mandruss, I'm glad to strike out "verboten" and now do so. Regarding concision, if we say that Trump recieved less than a plurality, that implies Clinton received a plurality, so it would be unnecessary to say that neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. I continue to support your version 3, Mandruss. But I also have no objection to how the paragraph is right now in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: This version has unfortunately the same problem as "Mandruss 3", in that it places undue weight on Trump's "loss" of the popular vote, which is mentioned twice. — JFG talk 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @JFG:, Yes, but it does mention the Electoral College. I've tweaked it and it think we need the larger community. Perhaps editors with fresh eyes will come up with a better solution. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I would have no objection to the C2 proposal if it is edited a little: "Donald Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clintondespite garnering fewer votes nationwide.. He garnered less of the popular vote nationwide, and they both garnered less than a majority. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service." I would not object if we also mention that garnering less of the popular vote has happened before, but would not insis on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: Great. This looks very much like my version C4 below, which I posted simultaneously to your comment. Would you support that? — JFG talk 00:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC) A possible problem with C4 is that it doesn't seem to indicate that she got more of the popular vote than he did, or how unusual that is, but I would be willing to leave those details for later in the article (just like I'm willing to include them in the lead).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I meant your proposal is very close to my C3. I'm fine with either, I just wish we can settle this and get on with our lives… The prospect of an RfC depresses me… — JFG talk 00:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC) I could live with C3, but prefer option number one in the RFC, because I don't especially like parentheticals in leads, I also prefer saying that Trump won without using the same sentence to detract from the win (by suggesting she had an advantage in popular voting), and moreover option one in the RFC indicates how unusual the situation is. The RFC won't take long if it's a snow close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, so here's C5 for your pleasure: C5. Donald Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service. No footnotes, no parentheses, no repeats, doesn't minimize Trump's victory, gives an honest account of the lack of plurality without using that word, and it's short and sweet. I think it can satisfy all participants here and I'm tempted to add it to the RfC… — JFG talk 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC) New proposal submitted toward consensus: C3. Donald Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, despite garnering fewer votes nationwide (none of the candidates earned a majority of the ballots). At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service. I took into account the objection of Anythingyouwant to adding a footnote and followed SW3 5DL's idea to expand the footnote contents into the text; however I made it shorter to keep the prose fluid and preserve appropriate weight per my remarks on Mandruss's proposal 3.: And yet an even shorter one: C4. Donald Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, although none of the candidates earned a majority of the ballots nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service. Yay? Nay? — JFG talk 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I support this. Good work distilling a long and confusing discussion to a version that I do believe represents consensus. Oops - I failed to notice that it leaves out the fact that she got a larger share of the popular vote. That does need to be included, and it is included in "version #1" of the RfC, which I assumed (never assume) was the same as this proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN: Right, you want C3 which says it all. — JFG talk 02:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Need more editors for consensus. The edit has changed. Fresh eyes by others will put perspective back and offer better suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) I've started an RfC. We need fresh eyes on this. I used the Mandruss proposal and the one I had. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC) By the way: some versions say he is the fourth, others say the fifth. Reliable Sources have differed on this. Whether he is the fourth or the fifth depends on how you count John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson got a plurality in BOTH the electoral college and the popular vote that year, but nobody got a majority, so it went to the House which chose Adams. I prefer "fifth" and so does our article United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN: Thanks for pointing that out. I believe that's a typo as looking at my word file had 5th per the Wikipedia article sources. I can strike it out and add 5th or leave a note under. Which do you prefer? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Here's my try (standing on the pained backs of others, of course ;) ) ... Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in an upset victory over Democratic challenger opponent Hillary Clinton. He received less of the national popular vote than his opponent she, and both received less than neither received a majority. At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest president, and the first president without prior military or governmental service. Thanks for consider. IHTS (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC) This also looks good and I would support it. Tweaks: I would suggest "neither received a majority" rather than "both received less than a majority". And I don't think "challenger" is the right word; that usually describes a person running against an incumbent. Actually this is very similar to option #3 in the RfC below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Thx, good. (I suppose "over Democratic adversary Hillary Clinton" isn't good either, but maybe it is? [Less dry reading.] And is the second "president" unnecessary? [I.e. is "will become the oldest and wealthiest president, and the first without prior military or governmental service" adequate?]) I think mine is the most concise (fewest words) option, you helped make even shorter! :) IHTS (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC) And is there something wrong w/ "rival"? Here is from Reuters today: "[...] lawmakers from both Trump's Republican Party and the rival Democratic Party sought to establish how closely Sessions hewed to Trump positions and whether he could put aside his staunchly conservative political positions to enforce laws he may personally oppose." So here's my updated ... Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in an upset victory over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. He received less of the national popular vote than she, and neither received a majority. At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest president, and the first without prior military or governmental service. Thanks for consider. IHTS (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia's/Putin's involvement should be mentioned in the lead

At this point, it's clear that the lead should mention the fact that Putin ordered an influence campaign to get Trump elected, as US intelligence reports have officially concluded

• US intelligence report: Vladimir Putin worked to get Donald Trump elected, The Guardian
• Intel report: Putin directly ordered effort to influence election, CNN
• Putin Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, The New York Times
• US election hacking: Putin 'sought to help' Trump, BBC
• Putin Ordered 'Influence Campaign' To Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Report Says, NPR
• Putin 'Sought to Help' Trump Win US Vote, Says Intelligence Report, Newsweek
• Declassified report: Putin ordered election interference to help Trump, The Hill
• Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump, The Washington Post
• Intel report says Putin ordered campaign to influence US election, Fox News
• Report: Putin, Russia Tried to Help Trump By 'Discrediting' Clinton, NBC News
• Intelligence Agencies Say Russia Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ to Aid Donald Trump in Election, Wall Street Journal
• U.S. intelligence report says Putin targeted presidential election to 'harm' Hillary Clinton's chances: Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an aggressive “influence campaign” that ultimately aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House, LA Times
• Putin Ordered Hacking to Help Trump Get Elected, U.S. Intel Report Says, Haaretz

The controversy over this matter is massive (and probably more extensive than any other topic related to Trump after the election), and its relevance/impact is clear. --Tataral (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No. This story is due in the 2016 election page, in Russia–United States relations and in the various leaks pages (DNC, Podesta, Wikileaks), not in Trump's bio. — JFG ^talk 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not here. Somewhere in his campaign article. Definitely in the articles mentioned by JFG. Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No, anything that could be in any perceived to be negative to Trump must be hidden away. No matter that a foreign government interfering with a U.S. election and the beneficiary of that interference berates his intelligence agencies rather than the perpetrators would be a hugely significant aspect of anyone's biography, we shall hide it! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the 24/7 discussions about Trump's alleged sexual assault cases or how we hamfisted Hillary winning the popular vote into the lead of everything. Be reasonable, one thing getting denied isn't the end of the world. Archer Rafferty (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for U.S. intelligence and can only describe their conclusions as they are described in reliable sources. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence has not concluded that the Russians had any influence on the outcome of the election, only that they intended to. TFD (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All of those reliable sources immediately above are obviously not truthy enough to serve as RS in a Trump article, and the U.S. intelligence service concluding that the Russians intended to bigly boost Trump's chances of election by hacking U.S. political targets but he doesn't think the intelligence services are correct or that it's serious should obviously not be in the article dealing with the C-in-C of the U.S. military. Stands to reason. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: The sources are fine, the target article is not. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree Russian involvement is extremely historically significant and should be mentioned. Casprings (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN has a new article about the 10 things intel agrees. One of them is not that they wanted Trump. One of them was them they wanted to destabilize democracy and make a mockery of elections. It could be that they hate both of them but were happy when they beat the pollsters, who predicted a Hillary win.

WP should take a stance like CNN and not make up conclusions not proven. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Absolutely not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this is a BLP, not an article on the election. In the lede? Ridiculous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is where it belongs: 2016 United States election interference by Russia Our rules here require that a summation of that article are included in this main Donald Trump article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is his Bio article, so seems the wrong place to mention this topic. Certainly not sufficient importance in his life or sufficient association to suit WP:LEAD level appearance. There's apparently an article specific to it and that article might be reasonably mentioned in the article about the election. Although it appears after the election is over, so perhaps in the election articles See Also section. Markbassett (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Election summary in the lede

Please read both versions of this edit, intended for the lede, and indicate in the survey which of the two you believe best conveys the outcome of the election. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent.

2.

In the November 8, 2016, general election, Trump won a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes, while Clinton won a plurality of the nationwide vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with fewer votes nationwide.

3.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service.

Adding a third option which strives to take into account all objections in the "Rephrasing" discussion above. — JFG ^talk 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Election summary in the lede

• Support #1 or #3 but would advise changing in #1 the last instance of "of the national popular vote" to "popular support" "the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent" to "the fifth president elected with less popular support than his opponent". Option #2 has several problems, including that the terms "nationwide vote" and "votes nationwide" confusingly describe both the electoral and popular votes, so I oppose option #2.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing to Support #3 only, in the interest of achieving consensus sooner rather than later. Version 3 will suffice, even though it omits the info about how many times (five) this has happened before.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #1 and disagree with the suggestion above; I think the existing wording "of the national popular vote" is better than the vague weasel term "popular support" (which could mean anything, even polling results). I do think it is good to mention both the lack of a majority of the popular vote for either candidate, and the fact that she got more/he got less (whichever way it is put), and #1 does both. I Oppose #2 for two reasons: it uses the word "plurality," which most people opposed, and the wording " the fifth elected with fewer votes nationwide" is unclear/confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I still prefer #1, but #3 is also OK. I prefer to say "the fifth president who", The "fifth president" is in the text of the article, so I am OK with omitting it from the lede if that is consensus. I don't much like the phrase "fewer ballots" although I recognize it as an attempt to avoid saying "popular vote" twice. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changing to Support #3 in the interest of achieving consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2. Hillary did win a plurality of the popular vote. The problem with #1 is that it states, "neither candidate won the majority of votes." This seems misleading, and could be misinterpreted as not winning more popular votes. Using the term 'Plurality" solves the problem. True, she didn't win a big majority, but she won more than Trump, and reliable sources take note of that. In addition, #2 does mention Trump won the Electoral College . This coupled with Hillary's plurality seems to perfectly describe the outcome of the election. More people voted for Hillary while Trump won more states. This is an important distinction as Trump is only the 5th person to win the presidency with fewer popular votes. Added: Also, calling Hillary an opponent diminishes the fact that she won her presidential candidacy. Candidate Clinton; not Opponent Clinton. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 as the best effort towards accommodating the remarks of all participants so far. No footnotes, no parentheses, no repeats, doesn't minimize Trump's victory, gives an honest account of the lack of plurality without using that technical word, and the prose is short and fluid. The "fifth president" factoid is well-covered in the linked article, doesn't add much value here. — JFG ^talk 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support current version - I think the current version [48] is best. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #1 - #2's "plurality" kills it for me; it wastes words stating the obvious (Trump won a majority of Electoral College votes); and other significant problems.
  #3 fails to provide historical context (fifth) for the popular vote outcome; I concur with MelanieN's comments re "ballots"; and I think "U.S." can be reasonably inferred by the reader.
  Strongly oppose substituting "popular support" for "popular vote", per MelanieN. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2, the only option that does not attempt to obfuscate the most important facts about the election: Trump lost the plurality of the vote and only won as a result of the USA’s antiquated and anti-democratic Electoral College created to sustain the USA's former anti-democratic and racist slavery system. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  You win the prize for the most blatantly POV argument to date in this RfC. He who does not recognize his own bias sees bias in neutrality. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  The most significant indicator of neutrality on Wikipedia is to receive personal attacks from POV-pusher Mandruss, nothing drives him crazy like hearing the truth told from a neutral point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Wrong accusation, Gouncbeatduke, please quit the aspersions. In my experience, Mandruss edits in a very balanced way and is always courteous. Your rant about the electoral college voting system being somehow linked to slavery is totally irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Like Grayson Allen, you be trip'n. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 clear and concise, neutrally worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 - Provides all details from a neutral point of view. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3. Providing both that he received fewer votes than Clinton, and that he received historically few votes, seems like overkill for the lead section. I also think "plurality" is slightly inaccessible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2. The only wording that is encyclopedic and neutral. Especially #3 clearly falsifies information, and is worded in a way that just confuses readers about the word "majority". --Tataral (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm, what information is falsified in #3? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What info do you feel to be falsified in #3?I would not mind a bit of explanation!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3 - Best of the options, describing the events from a neutral point of view and just the format suited for lead. Strongest oppose to #2.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #3. Suggest: revise "Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton" to "Trump got fewer votes than Clinton" for simpler wording.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3. Also support simplifying "garnered fewer ballots" per CuriousMind01 above. 'Ballots' is ambiguous meaning either an entire voting session (we'll hold a ballot) or (I presume meaning here) individual votes. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support #2 Seems to be the most comprehensive explanation; #3 would leave readers without a detailed knowledge of the electoral system wondering how Trump won. Number 57 17:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all options that mention a nonexistent "national popular vote". There was no national popular vote; only 50 state popular votes. You can't simply add up the state popular votes to find out what a national popular vote would have been if that were the system used, because in that case voter turnout would probably have been lower in swing states and higher in other states. That's because in the current system, voters have less incentive to vote in "safe states" and more incentive to vote in "battleground" states, and this affects turnout. Campaign strategy also would have been significantly affected. We cannot deduce or reasonably estimate what the result of a "national popular vote" would have been, based purely on the state popular votes. jej1997 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all options. The status quo is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support #3 Seems the most clear and neutral. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Clear and neutral? How is that even possible with incoherent sentences like Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots nationwide? Seriously? It does not convey any of the facts with any understanding. It muddies the water. It's the absolute worst possible choice. It reads like someone filling up their blue book with BS hoping the excess word count will "garner them points" with the professor. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Election summary in the lede

Opening an RfC at this stage in the consensus-building process underway above does not look helpful, as it throws us into 30 days of further discussion and reduces editor choice to two variants. I believe this should be shut down by the nominator. — JFG ^talk 23:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC in the middle of discussion is not helpful and should be shut down - preferably withdrawn by the proposer. I also think the two choices offered are not representative of the actual discussion. That is likely to wind up with a proliferation of other suggestions and the RfC will dissolve in chaos. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not in the middle of a discussion. It's going nowhere. On something like this, fresh eyes by other editors can only help. This is currently being discussed by only a small number of editors who can't seem to reach consensus. Hence, an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think we were on the verge of achieving consensus for your version #1, which is the product of input by multiple people. We may find out by the responses to this RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just be be extra-clear, I support #1 even if the last instance of "of the national popular vote" is not changed to "popular support". Melanie prefers not to change it, whereas JFG disliked saying "national popular vote" twice in this paragraph even though it's legally irrelevant and sounds kind of redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And I support #1 even if the wording change proposed by Anything is chosen. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked my suggestion so it would change "the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent" to "the fifth president elected with less popular support than his opponent". Hopefully, that will attract popular and/or electoral support from both User:JFG and User:MelanieN?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think this "fifth" (or "fourth") factoid needs to be included: the relevant historical details are in the linked article. — JFG ^talk 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, your C2 and C3 already mention that he got less of the popular vote, so your only objection seems to be the words "the fifth president who". I don't care one way or the other, and don't think that's a big issue is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct, we were very close to consensus indeed. Taking into account your latest remarks, I have now offered version C5 as option #3 in this RfC. Here's hoping we can converge on that one. — JFG ^talk 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not holding my breath. 😁 If this RFC gets no consensus, then the current version remains, which seems okay except for some people's dislike of the word "plurality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:MOS note: In all three of these proposals, if they go into the article, "Donald Trump" should be changed to "Trump" and "Hillary Clinton" should be changed to "Clinton". --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  As of now, the Clinton reference would be the first in the article, so I think "Hillary" stays. But "Donald" does need to go per WP:SURNAME. I think it should simply be changed in place here without ugly strikethrough; the changes are unlikely to affect existing !votes or discussion. I'll boldly make those changes. Also adding commas after two 2016s, same rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re #3. It has some issues. If this is the option getting consensus, well, it needs editing. (Issues: "victory" seems redundant to "won" ["Trump won ... in a ... surprise victory" seems redundant, but maybe not!?]; "earned" is ambiguous ["Neither earned" ~= "Neither deserved"]; "garnered" [Pretentious. Never knew Trump gardened. :O ]; "U.S. president" [Trying too hard to vary expressions introduces ambiguity. The first was "votes" varied with "ballots". {Ballots are votes. Varying the language once is moderate & OK.} The second is "the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president" {Hm? is "U.S. president" somehow different from "person assuming the presidency"? No. But varying back-to-back is too much. Negative return on investment.}]) p.s. I know neither time nor appetite to resolve these before implementation. Fine. But neither do I want to be accused of violating consensus if/when I attempt to copyedit these issues out of the implemented result. Ok, IHTS (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Final (?) tweaks

The discussion has been open for 5 days. I do think we should keep it open for at least a week, as kind of a minimum opportunity for all interested parties to contribute. But in the meantime, #3 is strongly in the lead (10 !votes for #3, 3 for #2, 1 for #1, 1 for "current version). Several people have suggested tweaks in the wording of #3. Can we work those out here, so that #3 is ready to go into the article when this is closed? This should involve only tweaks to the wording of proposal #3, not additions or removals or anything that changes the meaning. If you want substantive changes, do not propose them here. I'll copy #3 here. If you have a specific proposal, please put it below, as "change AAAA to BBBB". JFG, you have been really good at incorporating discussion into actual versions; do you want to give it one more go?

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate earned a majority of the popular vote, and Trump garnered fewer ballots than Clinton nationwide. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service.

--MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It needs to stay open longer. The bot only delivered the notice to talk pages yesterday, Jan 12. There's always a delay with the bot and the whole point of the RfC is to get comment from the wider community. And #3 seems to have curiously similar comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that. There certainly does need to be time for people to respond. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

For me, the "in a surprise victory" part shouldn't be included per WP:NPOV. The rest is fine. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 20:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a substantive change, not a wording tweak. Actually all three versions proposed in this RfC say "surprise"; I think that was as a result of earlier discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My only tweak is that I don't care for "garnered fewer ballots". Can we re-word this? --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people may have been surprised, others may not have been. It's a clear-cut POV. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 20:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Clinton was the clear overall favorite. IIRC, NYT's complex mathematical model gave her an 83% chance on the morning of Election Day. Whether individuals were surprised is not the point, and that is not what the phrase conveys here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't it be RS'd that most (people & pundits) were surprised!? IHTS (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd argue that a more common wording in the sources is that Trump's victory was an upset, using the sports metaphor. Most political races are handicapped (in the Vegas sense although betting on potus-outcome is only legal in foreign countries), just like championship sporting events, and when the person expected (by pundits) to be the underdog, ends up winning the most points (or electoral college votes), then the situation is called an upset, or redundantly, a surprise upset. The metaphor is appropriate, because none of the pundits predicted 100% probability of Clinton victory, but many of them predicted between 3:1 and 50:1 chances of a Clinton victory, which are pretty long odds from a betting standpoint. I would say we could nix the 'surprise' verbiage and rewrite to say 'upset' instead, with a wikilink thereto. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now ("surprise upset" = redundant; ). Good eye. --IHTS (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Upset" is good, and the wikilink is helpful because it describes exactly this situation. "Surprise" or "upset" is not POV; it is what virtually all sources said the next day (many added something like "stunning" for even more emphasis). This was because the pre-election polling had been so strongly in favor of Clinton. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My ce suggestions:

• "victory against" → "upset over". (To elim possible redundancy "Trump won [...] in a victory".)
  • "a surprise victory against" → "an upset over". (Borrowed from above.) --IHTS (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• "earned" → "received". (Because both were largely disliked, "earned" could be misinterpreted.)
• "and Trump garnered fewer ballots" → "with Trump receiving fewer votes". (The point is to contrast the candidates' various vote totals, which is highlighted better if the language stays consistent, rather than intentionally varying for "style".)
• "U.S. president" → "president". ("U.S." is implied by "the presidency" which occurs earlier.) Or "U.S. president" could possibly even be omitted. ("U.S. president" is possibly implied by "person to assume the presidency" which occurs earlier.)

IHTS (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all excellent suggestions, support. Though I would possibly prefer 'upset victory' rather than 'upset over' depending on if we can eliminate the later use of victory? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean "Trump won [...] in an upset victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton."? (But isn't "won [...] in a [...] victory" still somewhat redundant?) --IHTS (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions and I support them. We might consider inserting "total" for greater clarity: "and Trump received fewer total votes than Clinton nationwide" or "with Trump receiving fewer total votes than Clinton nationwide." However I don't insist on this and it may not be necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is trending support for #3 but the process needs to run its course. Perhaps not the full 30 days if consensus is clear, but at least a week. And yes, there are some reasonable change suggestions floating around, but it would be bad form to incorporate them before the RfC is closed. Given the extreme sensitivity of editors on any minute detail, any further change should be discussed after one of the three versions on the table is adopted. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why there is 'trending support' for #3. It is not clear and concise. It does not effectively convey information at all. It muddies the water. These are the indisputable facts: Donald Trump won a surprise victory. He won the Electoral College vote. Hillary won the popular vote. Trump is only the 5th president elected who did not win the popular vote. He did not have prior military or governmental service before his win. Words like "garnered more votes," sounds like marbles in the mouth. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why either; it just happened to be the most favoured option among those presented, at the time MelanieN and I commented. Might take a while to get consensus, and further discussion may still be required. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Trump protests in lede

Why is a there a sentence about anti-Trump protests in the lede? This is blatantly biased. I don't see this in the ledes of any of the other US presidents articles. If we're going to keep that (we shouldn't), then we need to include a sentence about the pro-Trump rallies as well per NPOV.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I do think we need some more attention to npov regarding this stuff. According to The Washington Post, "Ever since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015, he has attracted massive crowds to rallies across the country...."[49] That is, protests in his favor. Instead of saying so in the lead, we only say that there were lots of protests against him, and that he lied a lot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Re [50] and [51] ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that FutureTrillionaire has deleted it, claiming that this discussion is clearly in favor of removing it; would you all say that is an accurate description of this discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's okay to remove it until it's presented in an npov manner. It remains in the body of the article, after all. Keep in mind that a lot of the pro-Trump rallies received publicity regarding violent protests at them, and Politifact says at least some of that violence was instigated, and the "stated goal was to bait Trump supporters into violent acts simply by wearing certain t-shirts or saying anti-Trump remarks".[52] As for the other anti-Trump rallies, I don't know what proportion was sponsored by organizations versus individual participation, but it would be interesting to see what the reliable sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

“Instigation” implies responsibility. The fact that someone acts violently to words, either mouthed or on a t-shirt, does not make the t-shirt wearer responsible. Also, the Politfact article was based on a James O'Keefe video, which is an automatic disqualifier. Objective3000 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question, MelanieN, no, an agreement between two editors is not a "clear consensus" at this article. I let it slide because the thread had been quiet for 36 hours, indicating a lack of interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Two editors have objected to the content on the basis that it's an NPOV violation to discuss anti-Trump protests in the lead without mentioning the "massive" rallies/protests in his favor. No one has disputed that it's an NPOV violation. Under such circumstances, removal was obviously appropriate, and it can be restored if WP:NPOV is followed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let the deletion slide also. There's an awful lot in the lede; this one sentence will not be missed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur with the assessment above: either we remove protests from the lead or we balance them out by mentioning the supportive rally crowds. — JFG ^talk 23:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post mention under Business career->Bankruptcies

The final sentence in the 3rd paragraph reads:

A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."

Is there any particular reason as to why the bolded section is included here, in the context of his business bankruptcies? The only purpose for its addition that I can discern is to somehow slander the Post as biased or inaccurate in its reporting, because of the Trump campaign's decision to refuse giving them press credentials. (These credentials were also later reinstated, which is not mentioned.)

--Jw12321 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks VM. For the record, the quote from WaPo was dated February 29, 2016.[53]. The credentials were suspended later, from June 16 to September 7, 2016.[54][55]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you could read it other ways. You could say that the only purpose for its addition is to slander the Trump campaign as punishing the Post for negative reporting. Or you could say that it's a simple statement of fact, without bias. You could maybe make a WEIGHT argument against it, but I don't think the NPOV one flies. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but either way, it doesn't belong in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It sought to connect two things without any RS indicating they were connected chronologically or any other way, which was OR. It omitted the brevity of the suspension which was POV. And it gave undue weight to the matter, e.g. in relation to other publications that had their credentials briefly suspended.[56]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that it went away at +4 minutes, based on the unanimous agreement of two editors, "per talk". Okie dokie. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I support the removal of that unrelated tidbit. It did indeed appear to wrongly suggest WaPo's statement was colored by the removal of their press credentials. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur that this piece of trivia had to go, no matter which way it's interpreted. — JFG ^talk 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No blind trust

Should the article mention Trump's position on putting his business in a blind trust? [57] SW3 5DL (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any information on that? I think he has just tossed out the term "blind trust" a few times; has he now provided any details about what he is going to do? (Most people think that his proposed plan to have his sons run the business is not in any sense a blind trust.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The only way this should be in the article is if it is in a section detailing the many things Trump has said he would do but hasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Has he yet explained what he is going to do about his business? During the campaign he said he would explain in December. In December he said he would explain in January. If he has, I missed it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, he did bring it up at his press conference. It may take some untangling to figure out exactly what he said - aside from the fact that his two oldest sons will run the business, while he and Ivanka resign all roles. He will continue to have a financial stake in the business (a stake which has never been defined; I think it is possible that he is the SOLE owner since it is all reported through his personal tax returns.) [58] I'll do some more research and see what we can say. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, no blind trust. The advisor (I didn't catch her name) explained why--he can't "unknow" that he owns Trump Tower, for example. I watched it live on PBS's youtube channel.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, not a blind trust, just a trust. I think I have a decent paragraph which I will add to The Trump Organization as well as here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, as I understand it, the distinction between a blind trust and something that is just-a-trust, is that one can examine the accounting books of the latter, AND discuss those books with the trustees. Refs mentioned in a moment definitely say that Trump is not setting up a truly-blind-trust, but that he is restricting his books-access (overall P&L only) and his discussions (pledges not to talk business), in addition to relinquishing legal control over operations to Eric and DonaldJr. As pointed out by Zigzig20s above, it is possible to have his assets in what is a blind trust in the literal sense -- accounting books kept by an independent firm which is legally prohibited from allowing Trump personally or any of his staff/connections/etc from seeing the detailed contents thereof -- and yet Trump, with his decades in the real estate business, likely still having a decent idea of how the overall real estate market in NYC is doing just from watching the stock market and whatnot. Some pundits have been saying that Trump should *sell* all his assets, illiquid real estate mostly, to some non-family third party, but this is a catch-22: forced quick sales of high-value assets tend to go at firesale prices (hurting Trump's net worth and his brand-reputation), and simultaneously no matter WHO bought each property Trump would be accused of getting an over-valued deal (helping his net worth but hurting his potus-reputation). So to avoid that double-trap, Trump is NOT selling/divesting the major real estate properties, just relinquishing control over and most knowledge of bookkeeping-details via trust-vehicle#1, whereas trust vehicle#2 has his liquid assets (cash/stocks/similar) which the sources don't say much about but which might be an actual blind trust?

Newspaper which mentions some of that,[59] plus other interesting details -- Trump hotels will turn over profits from foreign governments staying at them, to the federal Treasury department. It also said there would be a new ethics advisor, which this ref says will have the title of Chief Compliance Officer.[60] Both that ref, and this one,[61] talk about Trump returning to the business at some point (but I think they are missing the forest for the trees... even if Trump never returned he would still be the beneficiary of the trust). And since his immediate family members will be involved with the business, there are also some kinds of broad non-verbal communication (e.g. Eric Trump shows up at thanksgiving in a new limo with fancy clothes versus Eric Trump shows up after riding the subway with just the t-shirt on his back type of thing) that will inherently clue Trump into how well his holdings are doing on the market, in a general sense at least. USNews ref from before says kids are not "truly independent" trustees, for short. I saw one ref characterize this kind of somewhat-blind-trust situation as a one-eye-open-one-eye-closed type of half-blind trust, back on November 11th however,[62] and wikipedia currently mentions the phrase at Presidential transition of Donald Trump. The newly-inserted-as-of-2016 subsection on 'qualified blind trusts' at the blind trust article, is another phrasing. CBS cannot resist making the obvious build-a-wall metaphorical comparison,[63] about the semi-blind-trust versus the southern border. CBS also mentions that CFO Allen Weisselberg will also be involved, though unclear whether as a trustee like the two kids or as an advisor to them as trustees. And CBS makes the comparison to the conflict-of-interest concerns during the four months of VP Nelson_Rockefeller#confirmation hearings in 1974, where he was opposed by repubs like Barry Goldwater as too liberal, AND by some dems as too rich. Like Trump, Rockefeller also ended up NOT use a truly blind trust. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A blind trust is basically impossible for someone like Trump. As his lawyer pointed out, he DOES know what he owns, and selling it all or giving it to his children is not practical or even really possible. So we will call it what he calls it: a trust. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, we should call it a trust. It is legally a trust, as the lawyer explained. Trump owns or is involved in 500 companies. He is not like the usual candidate who owns stock. They sell the stock and put the money in a blind trust for investing that the president has no contact or knowledge of the trades. That is not at all the case with Trump. To sell of his companies would destroy his business and that is not at all required by the Ethics Office, at least as I read it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Donald John Trump, Sr."

Someone has twice tried to add "Sr." to Trump's name, pointing out that he has a son named Donald John Trump, Jr. That is true, but that doesn't automatically mean that he goes by "Sr." and I could find no evidence that he ever does. In a quick search I got the impression that the only times that name is used is by someone who wants to mock him, for example the fake Twitter feed "Donald John Trump Sr.", tweeting as @hoaxDonaldTrump, and the fake Facebook page "The Unemployed for Sir. Donald John Trump Sr." I have removed it and invited the user to discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Barack Obama's father was named Barack Obama, which makes him Jr. or II. He never uses it. Same with George Bush. In my mind, if a person doesn't use it, and there is no confusion, it makes no sense for us to use it. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Never used by the subject or any RS. Non-starter. — JFG ^talk 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, per first sentence at MOS:JR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Blackmail allegations

Buzzfeed ran an article containing a document that alleges (Redacted). This has been picked up by a number of other sources, such as Cosmopolitan. How long should we wait, and what level of reliable source should we require, to cover these allegations? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just don't. WP:BLP restraint and all that… — JFG ^talk 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of deleting this suggestion and revdel'ing it. It's a massive BLP violation unless it is extremely well sourced - and in a search I didn't find anything approaching a Reliable Source. (And I hate to think what kind of advertising Google is going to show me because I searched this...) --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a rerun of the Jane Doe issue. But the NY Times has mentioned it:[64]--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

...and the Times (without going into details) describes the allegations as unverified and defamatory. 'Nuff said. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It goes into enough details if you read it closely.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's front page is ny times and Washington post. Some key facts that should be included, including that the FBI sought a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign, but were denied until October. This is extremely significant.Casprings (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the specific allegations might be UNDUE per BLP, but the general story is all over the sources. [65], [66], [67], [68]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The general story (without the specifics) has been added to the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia#January 2017 classified document briefing. That seems an appropriate place for it. IMO it would be UNDUE to put it in this biographical article, unless it becomes a WHOLE lot bigger story than a lot of other stuff we have left out. We do need to keep in mind this is a BLP article, not a news stream about everything related to him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Too soon, not enough corroboration. These are make allegations and most news outlets are treating them as rumors at the moment. Wait until we get solid, unequivocal confirmation. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI Donald Trump "compromised" claims has been created. I originally tagged it as G10 when it was under another name that was about the claims not mentioned in RS. It's since been moved the the G10 contested by an editor other than the creator. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't add anything about this until we get a very reliable source. A golden source, like the NYT or Washington Post.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: Oh, so you mean these two? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: come now. NYT uses "unsubstantiated" in its title and WaPo uses "unconfirmed" in its title. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I don't mean to say that we should include them because of these articles, just- it's a bit humorous that he asks for certain sources that were already linked. Possibly I wrote things poorly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the allegations that aren't in those sources, that Trump was told "Do what we say, or you're in trouble"That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We are going to have stories about Donald Trump every day for the next 4 to 8 years, assuming he lasts that long in the presidency. We have to determine significance otherwise the article will be unwieldy. TFD (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will the trickles become a flood? Is there dirty linen to be aired? Will this be a permanent stain on the presidency? These questions will not be answered in the twinkling of an eye.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that the whole Russia thing – not just this most recent information, but also Russia's interference in the election – needs to be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD ("The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president due to the odd political system of his country, his ties to Russia, Russia's election interference has completely dominated the conversation. Russia is the single most important thing that can be said about him after the election. --Tataral (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Since he lost the election by 3 million votes but nevertheless was appointed president". Some basic education for you: The Presidency is not "appointed" it is won; Trump won the election the only way it can/could be won (i.e. "Road to 270"); national popular vote is an interesting fact but beyond that has no bearing, it also cannot be "won"/"lost" since it is not a race/competition. IHTS (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You completely failed to address the point in my comment, namely Russia. Domestic idiosyncrasies in Trump's country simply don't count in an international context, and a claim that he "won" the election is certainly not true. --Tataral (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

News for you: not "claim" it's fact. And your "international perspective" has no place in the article or this Talk. IHTS (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Non useful edits. Keep in mind this is a BLP and receives heavy traffic. Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess the impression is that something stinks. Do we ignore the fact that the Emperor has wet his pants?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Hey, it seems he owns a hotel at Niagara Falls.That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC) But what exactly flows from that?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC) These edits should probably be deleted. Besides I hate puns. Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Agree on the former, disagree on the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If Trump had won the election as a result of Russian actions then it would belong in the lead. Instead, U.S. intelligence have a medium to high confidence that the Russians attempted to influence the election. Something that even if true had no effect on his election does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason this is being treated as a big/new story is not that the information supposedly influenced the election; I don't see that in the reporting. It's the concern that if Russia really does have damaging information about Trump, they could use it for blackmail or extortion - basically to influence Trump's actions as president. Also, I don't think anyone has suggested putting it in the lede. The question is whether to put it in the article at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Tataral suggested putting something in the lede, and I concur. The question is how to phrase it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not really a narrow question of whether Russia succeeded in influencing the election. First of all, the "Russia" issue is much broader than that and also includes Trump's attitude to Russia, a sworn enemy of his own country, and his strange, cozy relationship with Putin. It also includes among other things Russia's cyber warfare and disinformation campaign against the US, which have now resulted in new, extensive sanctions against Russia by the US government. And now this most recent controversy over blackmail. And a number of other things. For Wikipedia's purposes, the key issue is that "Russia" has dominated the conversation in connection with Trump since the election; therefore "Russia" needs to be mentioned in the lead somehow, due to being a prominent controversy (or multiple related controversies) judging by its coverage in reliable sources. Even if Russia had no influence on the election at all (highly unlikely), the coverage of the issue in reliable sources would still be a highly prominent controversy; for us here at Wikipedia, the question is not whether it's "true" (original research/analysis), but how and to which extent it is covered by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Not significant enough to include in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the topic. MelanieN, the blackmail is another story. Originally it was that the Russians hacked into the DNC to get the dirt on Trump so that they could understand him if he became president. We would have to show that it is important enough to put into the lead and it is rare for that to happen. We have to see whether it has traction or fades as the next story emerges. TFD (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial) to gather any information they could use to mess with the election. But I saw another report (not suggesting it go into the article, just for clarity) that the Russians have been collecting information on Trump for years - to use, not in case he became president (who expected THAT?), but to use in business dealings with him. Some of the rumored-not-mentioned stuff they supposedly have is several years old. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russians hacked into the DNC (and also into Republican sources, despite Trump's denial)... please be accurate and precise, MelanieN. Are you talking about agents of the Russian intelligence services, or are you talking about cracking-groups located in the landmass of Russia somewheres, who may or may not be 'linked' informally to governmental agencies? Are you talking about the high-level Trump campaign staffers and high-level RNC staffers, or are you talking about some Republican-party-leaning bloggers and some state-level campaign staffers? There is also the distinction between the intent to gather information for unspecified purposes (cracking groups) and an alleged intent to gather information to mess with the election for geopolitical purposes (intel agencies). Please see [69] which has a good overview of the nuances here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As for the other matter, yes, I would be shocked if the major intelligence agencies were NOT collecting data on billionaires, simply for economic reasons. See for instance the Economic Espionage Act making it a felony in 1996. Forbes and Fortune also pay close attention, not to mention tabloids & paparazzi. (And the alleged clairvoyants![70]) But collecting economic data is different from collecting blackmail material, in some ways, although like the mafia, one can always blackmail to impact economic negotiations or to extract economic concessions, I guess. Not being a major national intelligence agency myself, hard to say. Are there sources you can point me towards, I am having little luck with my keyword searches? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russia issue (which includes, but which is not limited to, the Russian election interference which even has its own stand-alone article) is clearly more than significant enough to be included in the lead. In fact, it's required to be included in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Tataral (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Looks like your interpretation of WP policies is as fluent as your interpretation of US electoral laws. — JFG ^talk 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Since we allegedly need consensus now

Would you agree that the addition made at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=759481551&oldid=759472321 was reasonable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, too. But doubtless someone will be along shortly to open an RfC... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Unverified, unverifiable, the report contains numerous easily observable factual errors, and every reputable source is keeping it at arms length. Even the ones that love to blame Russia for everything know that this doesn't smell right. Wikipedia should not be including unverified and defamatory information about living people, especially not in one of the most highly trafficked pages on the entire project. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That proposed edit was reasonable. It did not include any of the stuff Russia supposedly has on him, just the existence of the addendum. But we haven't gotten consensus here to say anything about it. The fact that there was this additional briefing is receiving massive attention today in spite of all the other news there is (cabinet nominee hearings, Obama's farewell speech, etc.) I say we give it 48 hours. Trump will undoubtedly be asked about it repeatedly in today's press conference, so it will still be news tomorrow. If the existence of these allegations is still big news Friday we should probably mention it - along with the denials from Trump and from Russia. For now I think the existing mention at 2016 United States election interference by Russia is enough for this encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should remain. "In January 2017, Trump was briefed on as yet unproven allegations that Russia had "potentially compromising personal and financial information" about him." That is fact and there are abundant very RS which confirm it. Whether the allegations are true or false is totally irrelevant to the inclusion of that sentence. It is whether we delve into the allegations that is currently debatable, not this. Restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is reasonable and should be restored. It would be better if it was edited to include who gave the briefing (leaders in the Intel community). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, give it 48 hours. WP:NOTNEWS and all. We could be having a scandal a day for the next four years for all we know, and not every one of them would merit inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I’m nearly always in favor of waiting a couple days before adding new, controversial info. This is no exception. OTOH, I wouldn’t argue against including some, careful, earlier mention in articles specifically about the election or Russia-U.S. relations. Objective3000 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I Oppose its inclusion. It's POV-pushing gossip meant to discredit him, and he's denied it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The supposed details of what Russia has are actually worse than gossip; they are BLP violations and I revdel'ed them when they were mentioned here. The fact that there was an amendment to the Russia report, saying there are reports that Russia has some bad stuff about Trump, is not gossip - and if you think that amendment to the report is "meant to discredit him" then you have a shockingly poor opinion of the professionalism of our intelligence organizations. In any case, I agree it should not be included yet - not until it demonstrates that it is more than just a passing news sensation. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual." and "The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. " (Goldman, Adam; Rosenberg, Matthew; Shane, Scott (January 10, 2017). "Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him". The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2017.) Zigzig20s (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

At least 48 hours. I wouldn't see the urgency even then, aside from the avoidance of uninformed accusations of suppression. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think this edit was mostly fine, needs some copyediting but doesn't get into anything salacious that could be false. The 4chan rumor is bunk, though. I don't object to waiting 48 hours to make sure it's fleshed out appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, wait 48 hours. This is evolving, not to mention Trump said in his press conference that he wondered about the leaking. The briefing was for him and Obama by the chiefs. Trump said he thought the leaks could be coming from his organization because it is so large, so he told no one he was having a briefing, not even his executive assistant. Then comes the leak. I think that might be worth a mention. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The above edit was perfectly fine. We can expect that some editors will vehemently oppose *ANY* mention of this situation in the lede, no matter how notable it is. I'm also unclear on what the "leak" is suppose to be. The media has had access to this report for months, since June at least. McCain got it and gave it to FBI in December. Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read the quote from The New York Times above?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• The edit was absolutely appropriate, accurate, and important to include. This is all over the news and people will be looking here for answers. To completely ignore it makes it seem like the article is out of date. We aren't reporting it as fact here, we are reporting that other third party new sources (the only thing we should care about) are reporting on it. People saying "there could be a scandal every day" are speculating. If that becomes the case we can consider what things we want to remove at that time. To preemptively suggest that we may have a lot more information to add to his page, so we shouldn't add it to his page now, is ridiculous. VegaDark (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We should not add gossip to Wikipedia. Let's get serious. Unless you want to add the direct quote from The New York Times above in the body of the text, to spell it o.u.t. that this is malarkey?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not "gossip" that every major news agency in the world is now reporting that "In January 2017, Trump was briefed by U.S. intelligence agencies on as yet unproven allegations that Russia had 'potentially compromising personal and financial information' about him." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with a 48-hour hold to let the details settle, but it seems almost certain that this must be included in some form. The narrative crafted by the Trump team is that nothing has been corroborated, but the BBC now says there are more sources. Also, news outlets and Wikipedia had no qualms about giving coverage to uncorroborated material from WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton, so let's not have a double standard here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The details of the allegations are going mainstream. Just yesterday I saw a headline reading "Meryl Streep Takes Aim at Trump"! --Pete (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pete, please do not drag Wikipedia into the gutter!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than 48 hours and this story is still a big thing, so that excuse is gone. To clarify, the proposed edit simply entails putting in a single sentence stating that Trump was briefed on the as yet unverified allegations, with no details of said allegations, and that trump has denied them. The consensus seems rather clear, but I would just like to make sure that I have read it right. Does the edit linked at the start of this section seem reasonable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is time for a sentence in the "transition" section. The edit linked above is fine. There is a lot more that could be said, but not in this biography. It is being said in great detail in the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2017

Weeaboo (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As per the template you added, it would really help if you indicated what changes you wanted made in the article, which you haven't done yet. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump: "You are fake news"

Worth to mention? http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-gibt-pressekonferenz-ihr-seid-fake-news-a-1129595.html Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See also http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory Twitbookspacetube (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Trivial fingerpointing as the press tries to find a compass in a haystack of needles while blindfolded. --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This would be more useful in an article about Donald Trump's relationship to the press and media. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:3D1F:3BB7:60F9:F5C2 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This incident came up over at the fake news website article, as well. The problem is that we don't currently have a solid article on the neologism of 'fake news' as a metaphor (distinct from 'fake news website' the clickbait-scam), just a disambiguation page, so we could not come to a consensus on where this altercation-with-CNN tidbit belongs. As far as the biography of Donald Trump goes though, it is definitely just one side-comment in yet another altercation with a journalist amongst many, and does not really belong in this article. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

While amusing, doubt it would pass WP:10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture

See #Current consensuses and RfCs, item 1. Considering the history of this issue, the consensus is not going to change, and certainly not in informal open discussion such as this. Further waste of editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Is terrible, can we change it? Shit, we should make it Trump's official Presidential portrait, when it's taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:3D1F:3BB7:60F9:F5C2 (talk) When the official portrait is published the infobox picture will be updated to be in line with past presidents. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Please no. For the love of God, not this again. It will be updated when there is an official Presidential portrait. Until then, this is the best we have under a suitable license. This has been discussed ad nauseum. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Will there be an official one around the time he is sworn in? If so, we only have a few days left. The Inauguration has started (refresh) Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC) We don't know. Barack Obama's official photo was released in January 2009. We will likely have an official government photo to use around that time. The painted portrait is typically unveiled around the time they leave office. Still, nobody wants another round of RFCs about the top photo when we will likely have a public domain government photo very soon. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Seriously, this is a complete joke. The man is about to be inaugurated as President of the United States and there is an objectively awful picture representing him and people are concerned about some silly consensus thing? This shouldn't even be up for discussion. This picture is terrible and anyone honestly thinking this is ok clearly has bias. Just use a decent picture for the love of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.215.53 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC) some silly consensus thing – consensus was reached to keep the current image until an official one was released to the public domain. Either that or there was no consensus in favour of changing to a different one. Prior to this, there was, as The Wordsmith said, extensive dispute and probably edit warring over which image should be used. A change of image without consensus between editors is likely to cause more edit warring. Linguist Moi? Moi. 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, that's correct. If you look back in the archive, there are literally dozens of discussion threads and hundreds of reverts regarding the top image, not to mention multiple noticeboard threads. Trust me when I say that this image is the best we currently have under a compatible license. Some have even tried contacting the Trump campaign to ask them to provide a better one under an acceptable license, but this is the best we can do for now. All the alternatives are worse. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Please see #Current consensuses and RfCs, item 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "occupation"

Re [71] and [72]

Since I see this error a lot in infoboxes, I think it's worth a bit of discussion. Consistency with incorrectness does not benefit the encyclopedia.

The Merriam-Webster entry for "occupation" is here. You will note that none of the senses refer to a title or specific position. The most applicable sense is 1b: "the principal business of one's life: vocation". The associated example is: "Teaching was her occupation", not "Geography teacher at Pleasantville Elementary School was her occupation".

If a businessman holds two business positions, we don't say that he has two occupations.

See Ben Bradlee for correct usage. Note that his occupation is shown as "newspaper editor", not "Editor of the Washington Post".

If anyone disagrees, I would very much like to hear their reasoning.

In Trump's infobox, I don't strongly object to showing specific positions after the occupation, in parentheses, as per status quo, although my preference would be to omit that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that occupation==vocation. If layout-space is at a premium, suggest that we do something with wikilinks like this:

• Occupation: real estate developer, television personality, author

That is 'misleading' since any elementary school children amongst the readership who literally have no idea what the english phrase 'real estate developer' means will be sent to the incorrect article. And there are also plenty of people who are international readers, and might not have English as a first language, that this technique could confuse. But I do think it would be better than saying "occupation: real estate developer (The Trump Organization), etc" and far less grammatically grating than saying "occupation: CEO of The Trump Organization, etc" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I care more about WP:EGG than you do, as those would be clear violations of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Current formulation looks like a good compromise between conciseness and clarity. I was guilty of an Easter-egg formulation earlier. — JFG ^talk 22:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pied Piper

"n part due to his fame, Trump's run for president received an unprecedented amount of unpaid coverage from the media that elevated his standing in the Republican primaries."

We should absolutely mention clinton's pied piper strategy that absolutely backfired here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:5489:3299:A6D1:A822 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If we use alleged, hacked e-mails as a reliable source for the internals of the Clinton campaign, then, seems to me, we must also use the leaked, alleged Trump dossier as a reliable source for Trump’s activities. Or not. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The number of trump supporters using the "BUT SHILLARY GUIZ!!1!" argument is simply pathetic. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a false equivalency. No one is really denying the validity of the emails, while many have questioned the dossier. Btw I am not commenting on if one or the other are reliable sources. More stating that if one is reliable, that does not make the other reliable as well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't know whether the e-mails are original and complete, and don't know the context. We do not know that there was an active "Pied Piper strategy". A Google search doesn't find the needed, respected news sources. Objective3000 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In reguards to the "Pied Piper" stratage, several reliable sources imply the email was valid Salon and Politico for example. What they actually did to act on it I do not see right now. But I'm not sure if they acted is the point of mentioning it, more that they had a plan for it. As for the rest of the emails The Daily Beast says "The vast majority were genuine", for what its worth. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

False edit summary

This edit summary is false: "No need for this and it's not a direct quote anyway; it is an editor's parsing of the article that seems intended to cast doubt on the content." Of course it's a direct quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If User:MrX is not interested in whether this was a direct quote (it absolutely was), then I will simply restore it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than I thought. Not only is it not a single direct quote, it's actually the entire first sentence of the fifth paragraph, with ellipses added to make it look like the sentence continues, followed by the entire sixth paragraph. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton is introduced as if to say "well, Trump tells some falsehoods, but so does Hillary". Trump's telling of many falsehoods is referenced to several sources, not just PolitiFact. There is no legitimate reason to include these two excerpts from this one source in the citation template. The only reason I can fathom for including it would be to lead readers to a different conclusion than represented by the consensus text already in the lead.- MrX 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that I was quoting directly from the cited source. And you admit that the cited source says "there's some context that's necessary here". But you, a Wikipedia editor, disagree with the reliable source that any context is necessary here. To which all I can say is that we're supposed to follow reliable sources rather than the contrary opinions of Wikipedia editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this sounds like user-talk argumentation about behavior, thus far, can I please request that Anythingyouwant and MrX post "please change XXX to YYY" type of information, which explicitly says what the content-dispute is about? Consensus version from December, change proposed by Anythingyouwant, change-if-different-from-December-consensus proposed by MrX. Perhaps I am too lazy to click the links provided, plus, I think that having some prose-options might help guide discussion into a more-fruitful pathway? Thank you 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

An existing footnote in the lead says this: Cillizza, Chris. "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false", The Washington Post (July 1, 2016). I am suggesting to include a quote at the end of the footnote: "Now, there's some context that's necessary here....Trump has been fact-checked 38 more times than Clinton. And, yes, PolitiFact was the one deciding what statements to fact check. This is not a comprehensive guide to the relative truthfulness of every word uttered by Trump or Clinton in this campaign. But, the number of times his statements have been ruled 'false' or 'pants on fire' is still substantially higher than it is for her."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with clarifying the totality of what the writer in fact said. Especially in a rarely-read citation |quote=. That would seem more consistent with NPOV; we are not required to stick to an anti-Trump narrative here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no need to include a quote about Clinton in a citation template when the referenced article text rightfully makes no mention of Clinton. Whether Clinton has made false statements is completely irrelevant to the documented fact that Trump has made false statements many times, and continues to do so.- MrX 14:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  Using the same logic, Trump supporters would exclude the same comments from Hillary Clinton because they refer to Trump. And in fact that WaPo piece is not cited in Clinton's article. If not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, what Wikipedia article is about both people and therefore a legitimate place for that quote? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  We are on the verge of mentioning in the lead of this article (not in a footnote) that Clinton got less than a majority of the vote. Including similar context in a footnote, when reliable sources say it's "necessary here", is not problematic at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  The lead sentence in question is currently under RfC above. Option #3 seems to me the only neutral one, the only one that tells the whole story, but it's fairly clear it's not going to reach consensus. So neutrality in this area may be a lost cause unless someone cares to take the question to a higher court, whatever that would be. I'm not that guy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  Mandruss, my understanding is that the RFC is about the wording "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" rather than about the footnotes. But, if you like, we can follow the suggestion of User:MelanieN who said, "The footnotes issue can be dealt with after that RfC is resolved".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend recently to abuse the quote attribute of the citation template, and this would seem to me to be another example. It should only be used to provide relevant context, and this seems like an expansion of that. I agree with MrX on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the cited source when it says "there's some context that's necessary here"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I do indeed disagree, because the "context" that Cillizza was adding was totally unnecessary. Trump was fact checked more often than Clinton because he made more statements than Clinton and lied more often. That's just Cillizza adding his 2 cents because he's an opinion columnist, and it isn't germane to the material that was being added. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump was fact checked more often than Clinton because he made more statements than Clinton and lied more often. - To factcheck him more often on the premise that he lied more often would be highly circular, and I doubt anyone could do that and be taken halfway seriously. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The URL for that Cillizza article says "news", see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/ If it is not news, then I suggest we remove it from the lead, which would still leave two footnoted news articles. But I doubt we should treat the Cillizza piece differently from what the URL says it is. Moreover, WaPo identifies Cillizza as a "reporter".[73]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the quote is accurate and the reference is reliable, I don't see any need to include this quote in the reference citation, and I certainly don't see any need to make a big battle over it. In general I think the use of quotes in reference citations is overdone. In fact it often seems to be done for argumentative purposes ("see? This is what I am trying to prove"); I would prefer to see reference quotes used only when necessary for clarity. That's a general comment; I am not implying anything about the particular case here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, if the quote is accurate and the reference is reliable, then I assume you agree that the source says (accurately and reliably) that "there's some context that's necessary here". So it would seem irresponsible for us to omit the context completely in the lead. I agree that quotes in footnotes should be the exception rather than the rule, but here the only alternative would be to place the necessary context in the text of the lead itself, which would be preferable to the status quo but perhaps objectionable to other editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is one out of three citations to a sentence in the lede. Just because Cilizza thought "some context" was necessary for his full-length article, doesn't mean it is necessary for our purposes. But I'm not going to get deep into the weeds here. My feeling is that there is no need for this and it's not worth fighting for. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like to rely on the first two refs, we can do that. We do not have to take the third ref out of context. Accordingly, I plan on removing the third ref.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't. Just because you can't get consensus for adding two-quotes-in-one to a footnote, that does not clear the way for you to remove the entire citation. - MrX 21:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to remove this reference. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Obviously, this source is not a reliable source for a factoid stripped of context that the source itself says is "context that's necessary here". If the ellipsis is what's causing a problem, I'm glad to quote without an ellipsis. Editors here seem oblivious to the problem with omitting context that the source says is "necessary". That is a major no-no anywhere in any Wikipedia article, not to mention in the lead where we have the most controversial sentence of a high-profile BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Leave it be. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The official portrait of the President-elect is out.

File:Donald Trump Presidential portrait.jpg

Given that it's black and white and low-resolution, and likely not the official Presidential portrait, should we wait until the official one/a high-quality color portrait comes out? MB298 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, goody! It's not bad. I'm fine with it being used, for now at least. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We did say that we would wait for an official portrait, but really? Black and white, scowling? This is worse than any of the dozen or more portraits we have considered, and much worse than the one currently in the article. I concur that we should wait for his PRESIDENTIAL portrait, instead of this one as president elect. Surely the White House will come up with something better! --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to the man, he is 70. Still, I agree it may be better to wait for the Presidential one. I don't mind either way, though. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If these people still find objections based on personal opinion of the subject's appearance (once the official portrait is released) I swear... Note that this was provided by the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee, to accompany the Inauguration invitation. I just now extracted the original from the PDF. I recall something similar being done in 2009, when Obama and Biden were given portraits just for that purpose, but Pete Souza provided Obama's official portrait on January 14, 2009. Calibrador (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

He looks better in B&W. But, if I ever again respond to a discussion on DJT images, please take me to ANI and TBan me. Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a given that, even if we spent the next 2 weeks deciding to use this photo, it would be replaced by the presidential photo when it comes out—without discussion. Hardly worth any perceived improvement in the interim, which would be almost entirely subjective as always. I share Objective3000's sentiment; the whole point of the RfC and the one before it was to close this time sink. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I would not support a change right now, but personally, I prefer this photo to the one currently in the article, minus the fact that it is B&W, for I don't see a change in consensus. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, I don't think this is the intent of the word "official" in the RfC. The words "White House" were used by five !voters, with zero !voters saying anything about "other" official photos that might precede the White House photo. The fact that the words "White House" didn't make it into the close statement is the only reason this thread can't be collapsed like all the other out-of-process threads before it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to support using the President-elect′s official government portrait in the President-elect′s official Wikipedia infobox. MB298 observed that it's "black and white and low resolution". Ironically, so is every presidential portrait on every item of US currency in circulation. (Indeed, the image almost looks suitable for engraving.) This is what the President-elect has given us; at the very least, it should be included for archival purposes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 03:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What on earth does U.S. currency have to do with Wikipedia infobox photos??? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

They're both supposed to be "official", correct? And wasn't that the point of the RfC? This is the subject's official portrait photo; it's the subject's only official portrait photo. It can be added immediately; and it can be restored immediately. (What's not to like about that?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

See my above comment beginning, "As a procedural matter". And what's obviously good to you will not be so obviously good to others, I hope we've learned that much in the Donald Trump Infobox Photo Saga. It is not so obviously good to me, for example. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Where did I say it's looks "good"? All the matters is whether it's official. Not how it looks. The point of the RfC: use the official presidential photo for the presidential article. Analogically, use the official president-elect photo for the president-elect article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well if we're playing "Where Did I Say", where did I say that you said it looks good? I said you said it is good (second half of the contraction "what's"). The point of the RfC: use the official presidential photo for the Donald Trump article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was to wait for the official presidential photo. No more arguments!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: Thinking about it, a scowl is exactly the pose Donald Trump would choose for his official portrait, no? It perfectly describes everything. That said, I bet they colorize it before it's "official". This must be a draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. I have read that he consciously models his facial expression on the Clint Eastwood scowl. That will be an interesting change from the usual official portrait. Remember all the people insisting that whatever portrait we used must feature "a flag and a smile"? That might not be what he's looking for. As far as this portrait goes, if people want to use it that's OK with me. I hope they are prepared for the onslaught of "why are you using such a terrible photo, you are obviously trying to make him look bad, why do you hate him?!?!?" that will erupt when they do. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FDR didn't smile either. — JFG ^talk 09:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ————→

That onslaught is not OK with me; since it is inevitable as you say, the photo is not OK with me. This is what process is for. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the cover of Time when he was a candidate back 2015. They mentioned that no matter how many shots they took, this was how he always looked. I don't think it's a scowl. It seems to be how he poses. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Muboshgu, MelanieN, and SW3 5DL about the 'Eastwoodesque' look. But I don't feel like it's our job to tell Trump whether this is or isn't his official portrait: He's saying (by implication) that it is, not that it isn't! It can accordingly be added (and if need be, restored) per RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no RfC that has reached that consensus, and no amount of convoluted reasoning will conjure one out of thin air. The consensus is for a White House photo. If anyone felt that a non-White House official photo should suffice, they had their chance to say so in the last RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Double agree, but do think that this b&w photo belongs in the appropriate subsection of Presidential transition of Donald Trump. But not here in the biography, and definitely not in the infobox. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Triple agree.. Let's not go through the photo bit again. It was decided to wait for the official photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait for the White House official photo of Trump. PS- A black & white photo in 2017? I don't think so. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Much as I think this hilariously bad black and white image is all kinds of awesome, I agree that this article should wait for the official portrait that will doubtless come very shortly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Agree it is so bad it's awesome. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the sourcing

I'm agreeing this isn't the 'official portrait', but am wondering what it is and where it is from.

First, I notice it's related to the senate.gov, not whitehouse.gov or NARA as yet and not 'official' position portrait because he's not yet official. It's also not greatagain.gov or shareamerica.gov which would seem the more likely / authoritative sources for the president-elect camp. The senate website is about the inauguration process, and the image seems a photoshopped side item for the website from prior imagery. (At least when I do a yahoo search it seems to show a prior color image without a background of summertime whitehouse and flag in the background. So -- anyone know what the root image is from ?

Second, I'm noticing the filename is odd and not the one on their main page. The senate site shows a very similar but slightly different image here when you scroll down on their home page. So what webpage has this photo ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Official program for the inauguration released by the Joint Congressional Inauguration Committee: http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Entire%20Program.pdf Calibrador (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Children in Infobox

The infobox lists Trump's children as: "5, including: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Tiffany Trump". This immediately raises the question "Which one's missing?". Template:Infobox person/doc says that children's names should be included "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant" and that "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable", so the guidelines seem to indicate that young Barron Trump, who doesn't have his own article, shouldn't be included. But I think this a case where WP:IAR comes into play. The omission of Barron is distracting, so the inclusion of his name improves the article. He is high profile and hardly an unknown figure, so I don't think the privacy reasoning applies. And whilst he doesn't have his own article, Barron does have his own subsection, so arguably the clause about notability doesn't apply either. I propose that the "5, including:" is removed from the infobox and "Barron Trump" is added. What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Barron should be included. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, rather than saying "Children: five including #1 #2 #3 #4" it makes far more sense to say "Children: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Downside of omission exceeds that of inclusion. In one week he will be a son of the leader of the free world, I don't think there is any expectation of privacy as to his name. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Malia and Sasha are linked in Obama's article, even though they don't have separate articles, so I see no reason why this should be different. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. Several prior discussions here and at family templates concluded that Barron's name should be mentioned, precisely to avoid such questions as "who's missing?" and constant edit wars on the issue. At the same time, an independent article on Barron Trump was rejected at AfD, with a consensus to redirect to his section on the Trump family article. I believe this gives us a mandate to include his name in the infobox and have it redirect to said section (and the link Barron Trump already does that). — JFG ^talk 09:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree le hacker extraordinaire should be included, per WP:IAR and convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede sentence

We had a long discussion above about how the lede sentence should be worded, and we are very close to consensus, but we haven't quite nailed it down - possibly because the discussion is so far up the page it is getting overlooked. I don't want to start a new thread at the bottom of the page, because there was a great deal of valuable discussion that led to the near-consensus that we have. Seeing that it is so close to inauguration day, I have proposed we leave the current lede as it is, and agree on what we want it to say when he is inaugurated. That gives us a week. Please chime in at that discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Let's wrap this up. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always stated (and will again) keep the lead as simple as possible. Just use the leads of the other US Presidents bios as guidelines. PS - Yes, let's wait until after the inauguration, as the lead content will naturally change on that date. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a preference between the two options listed above? --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I oppose all three of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexist language was overlooked but fixed. Former businessperson. Samswik (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Is everyone, really, ignoring all the criticism on Trump out there?

Why isn't there a section on criticism of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Because criticism is supposed to be incorporated into the sections about what he has said or done that attracted criticism. There is no criticism section in Adolph Hitler either, why don't you ask about that? TFD (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It's important to not lend undue weight to that particular aspect; the article must be balanced and neutral. Also, this article is a biography of a living person; inappropriate unsourced or poorly sourced content is construed broadly. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism is included throughout the article in the ideal sections, just not in a single section titled "Criticism". There are also many sub-articles that address his controversies and criticism. κατάσταση 21:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump and professional wrestling

I came here to browse one of the RFCs, notice of which was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. While I may comment eventually, two other things came to mind. First off, the "Professional wrestling" section states "He has hosted two WrestleMania events in the Trump Plaza", with "Trump Plaza" linking to Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. Those events (WM IV and V) actually took place at Boardwalk Hall, which they called "Trump Plaza" strictly for storyline purposes. Secondly, I've seen a pattern of edits come across my watchlist regarding not only Trump but Linda McMahon over many months in a number of articles. These edits, mostly deletionist in nature, suggest that we don't need to mention their professional wrestling careers and political careers in the same breath, irrespective of the existence of high-quality media sources which do precisely that. I believe this is due to the pro wrestling project, where most members push the POV that their favored cherry-picked list of sources are the only valid sources to use on those articles (in other words, in this universe, the NYT and WaPo aren't reliable sources as far as they're concerned). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)