Talk:Donald Trump

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

RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

I'm closing this after receiving a request to do so.

Regarding the question about whether to mention the topic in the lead, opinions are numerically nearly evenly divided. "Include" is slightly in the majority, particularly if one discounts the few opinions that incorrectly consider the mention of sourced allegations of misconduct libelous. Otherwise, though, there are valid arguments on both sides, and they boil down to whether the topic is so important to Donald Trump's life and career that it should appear in the concise summary that the lead is supposed to be. That is a question of editorial judgment, and I can't determine, as closer, who's right and who's wrong about this. So there's no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead. – The discussion mostly hasn't taken into account Trump's recent election victory, and I surmise that the lead will tend to grow to cover his (likely eventful) presidency. I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election.

Regarding the question about the length of the text in the lead (if the topic is covered in the lead at all), opinions range from one short sentence to a paragraph, but on average consensus seems to tend towards one or two short sentences.  Sandstein  20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Summary of issue

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

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

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

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

Need for this RfC

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

Questions

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

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

RfC opinions and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comment copied from below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:

§ Sexual misconduct allegations = 275 words,

Article = 14,675 words,

275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.

§ Intro = 451 words,

0.019 × 451 words = 8.5 words.

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

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

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

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

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

0.026 × 451 words = 11.7 words.

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

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

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

0.009 × 451 words = 4.0 words.

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

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

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

0.018 × 451 words = 8.1 words.

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

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

409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,

0.0673 × 451 words = 30.3 words.

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

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

169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,

0.033 × 451 words = 15.0 words.

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

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

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

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

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

(←)

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

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

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

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

0.021× 451 Words = 9.3 words.

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

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

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

0.070 × 451 Words = 31.5 words.

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

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

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

0.031 × 451 Words = 13.8 words.

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

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

520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081,

0.081 × 451 Words = 36.3 words.

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

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

322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069,

0.069 × 451 Words = 31.2 words.

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

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

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

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

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

discussion re editor conduct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DrFleischman:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helpful interim edits

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

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

References

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

'Trump jocularly bragged about...'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure request

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

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

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

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.

New picture

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to put a more appropriate image in the infobox. --Reollun (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Are you serious or joking? Please check out the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC) See here. It's very unlikely that you'll get much support for reopening that debate now, as the discussion was quite recent and resulted in a firm consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC) @Reollun: The current image looks OK. How could a better image be chosen? Jarble (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC) @Reollun: I presume it will have to be changed since he is now preisdent-elect. --Reollun (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Why would a person who just won the presidential office have a frown on them??? Use the photo from Wiki Commons (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Donald_J._Trump_October_2016.jpg/113px-Donald_J._Trump_October_2016.jpg) instead. hvacrmaster (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to change the lead image. The smiling Trump is reflective of the man who is now President-elect of the United States. Trump is not the man in deep contemplation but the man who contemplated a winning strategy and stands ready, and happy to serve.--John Cline (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Agree, of course. The same goes for United States presidential election, 2016, the pages about the Republican primaries, etc. We have a fine picture, it's time to use it. This is not equivalent to "beating a dead horse" anymore. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I placed a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox. If this is reverted, this image is the proposed image: Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 (cropped of Image 1) Placed this in the talk page just in case! --ZiaLater (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules...--Stemoc 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Reminder : this image has also been proposed (see section above and previous discussions) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC) (moved image to gallery above) ZiaLater is following the rules, but you are not. I agree with the logic of ZiaLater, and I vote to keep the contribution of ZiaLater. Several others have already reverted your disruptive edit concerning this matter, Stemoc. Please see WP on conduct—anything remotely percieved as bullying is to be avoided, and don't be resistant to allow others to contribute within guidelines. You're not the only user here, and so far you're the only one resistant to this edit. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry for placing it without discussion! One of the reasons I uploaded my image is that in the current image, the microphone is in the way. The other proposed image seen in the reminder has a microphone too but is not bad.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Also, here is another proposed image: (moved image to gallery above) Should be enough options for now.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I think User:ZiaLater's first proposal (at the top of this section) is the better one. Please be aware though that the image should not be changed without clear consensus here. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and I've reluctantly just had to block an editor who exceeded 3RR who was edit warring over the image. This is a reminder to all editors not revert more than once on this article in a 24 hour period. WaggersTALK 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Indeed, I did not revert's ZiaLater's edit on the page because I did not like the image but because he/she did not follow the protocol which is that images need to be discussed here and a proper outcome (if there is one) needs to be adhered to. You cannot just go 'willy-nilly' changing the image to suit the one you want. The image has been changed on that page many many times so a proper procedure should now be followed, that said, it would be wise if admins watching the page do not block users trying to restore the longstanding image by mistake, As i was told by another admin, the IRR on that page is not very clear..That said, I do like the first image but it has to be zoomed in a bit, its supposed to be a headshot, not a longshot :)--Stemoc 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, there's been quite a bit of confusion and discussion about discretionary sanctions lately; in the case of the editor I blocked they had breached 3RR not just the discretionary 1RR sanction so it was a fairly clear-cut decision. You're quite right, admins should not block users trying to restore the longstanding image (unless it's clear the consensus has changed of course). WaggersTALK 10:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Ok, I added a gallery now, its an easier method and makes it less congested, peopel can add more options (just make sure its an actual headshot and recent and not images from 2014 or before).--Stemoc 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC) 1, 2 and 4 are fine as far as I'm concerned. What matters is that we have to replace the current photo ASAP. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I like Image 2 the most but it would be better if the microphone was photoshopped out. 1, 3, and 4 are also feasible. Note that the photo of Trump on the United States presidential election, 2016 article has been changed as well. CatcherStorm talk 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I vote for Image 4. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Comment: Why don't we wait until his presidential picture is released? We are going to change this picture to only have to change it again soon. When will this non-sense end? Chase|talk 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC) How long does it take for this official picture to be revealed? With Obama, it took months. As president elect of the United States, Trump should at least have a decent picture until the official one is unveiled.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC) No change until his official portrait emerges. That was the consensus in zillions of prior discussions. — JFG talk 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Change picture. Out of all the photos to chose from, this was obviously a negative POV choice. There's no reason not to change to an image with a formal pose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Change picture to 3 or 4. 3 is him grinning and not smiling as much while 4 is closer and shows him smiling. The current image shows him hunched over behind a microphone.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC) No change per JFG, although zillions may be a slight overstatement. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Change picture I don't like Trump, but he does look pretty damn presidential in picture #3 UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC) How much longer is this going to go on? Pretty soon all of Trump's and Clinton's supporters that come to this page are going to line up and vote accordingly here. So we must let Wikipedia POLICY determine what photo is used. -- The existing photo of Trump, clearly wearing a frown with eyes shifted to his left, violates Policy regarding Biographies of Living People, as it is a "disparaging" image of Trump. Since there are more formal pictures that could have been chosen, this is a POV issue as well. All president's biographies, and even that of Hillary Clinton, present the subject with a favorable pose. We need to treat this biography like any other. The image should be changed now and administrators should make sure Wikipedia policy is maintained for all editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Comment: Image 3 has been placed into the infobox for now since most agreed with in and because most agreed that the previous image was not NPOV. Image 3 can stay for now but if others want to agree on the other proposed images, decide below. The previous image, however, should not be placed back. At least for the next few months until his official portrait is unveiled, we can have a NPOV image for him.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Comment I do agree with others that the current photo is not ideal. It is difficult to find a photo that is both available for usage per its licensing and also one that everyone can agree upon, but I think the current one could be much better. Nagylelkű (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Comment Gwillhickers mentions the behaviour or "Trump's and Clinton's supporters" : I am not a Trump supporter, but that doesn't stop from thinking that the photo should be changed. Quite simply because it does not only make Trump look bad (hence violating NPOV) : it makes Wikipedia look even worse. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Trump Picture!!! Can we now please get a new picture of PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP?--Subman758 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC) This is under discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Seems not to matter now. The practice is to keep the official government photo of their last government position -- so in a couple months it would become his official Presidential Photo, and then it stays that forever. Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC) This is my opnion but I don't think the new picture looks presidential with the black background and the expression on his face. I proposed a new picture in a new topic --Dyl1G (talk) 2:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Hello everyone, The only images we should be considering are those which A. include President-elect Trump smiling, and B. include an American flag in the background. This is the standard for literally all U.S. president's WP pages, and U.S. presidential candidate's WP pages. Therefore, only image # 2 would qualify. We should change to this photo immediately, and if in a few months there is an 'official photo', we can later change to that one. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Agree. Can we at last change that photo ? Quite frankly, the current one is making wikipedia look ridiculous. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

When is the article getting unlocked?

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

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

Also consider that this is the first time I've personally seen this protection template used, the 30/500, even when considering other presidents (they are almost always semi-protected). Donald Trump is an extremely provocative and controversial figure, and I'd imagine that the edit warring on this article would have been record breaking. I'm honestly surprised that they didn't go with Full-Protection (administrators only), but the 30/500 (30 days tenure, 500 edits), combined with all the other special rules, is fair. I don't expect this level of protection to end anytime soon - in fact, I bet it will need to be on here until Trump is out of office. The Legacy (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Colleges attended by Donald Trump

I suggest adding the following information to this article:

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

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

  I also concur with making this edit. The Education section does not mention any schools or years. The Washington Post has reported on his K-12 and higher education institutions. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/17/yes-donald-trump-really-went-to-an-ivy-league-school/ Smashrgrl (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about extended-autoconfirmed protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've today set the protection back at semi (which is always going to be a minimum for this article). I would have preferred some of the latent disputes to have settled a bit more and I'm sure there'll be some more controversy, but the huge spike in traffic is over and the number of editors has greatly reduced. Extending ECP until, say, January doesn't seem justified. Any admin is welcome to change the protection if/when there are significant new developments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is the presumptive president-elect since the electoral voting is on December 19. It's just the same nature as he was the presumptive Republican nominee before the votes were cast at the RNC convention in July. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

President-elect is the proper title for the position he is in right now. Between the general election and inauguration. If the electors end up being faithless (extremely unlikely) only then would the title change. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Religion

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

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

References

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

• I would agree with including his religious affiliation, it is one of the things I look for in an infobox, and is to be found in the info boxes of other presidents and vice presidents, it seems rather odd not to have it. It is certainly more relevant than the man's signature. Cyndane5 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Cyndane5

I hope you all are not going to try to drag up this extremely contentious debate again. At the very least, read the numerous, lengthy discussions before dragging up old arguments again. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How about any kind of indication as to where the discussion on this issue might be found. Rather than snidely dismissing their suggestions. ColeHeideman (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert to image that gained consensus

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a consensus that File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg is the best image to use here, and yet another editor put in the current image, claiming some others liked it on this talk page. However, lacking a detailed discussion and consensus like the other one received, the above-linked image must be used until a new consensus is reached. This is standard practice. I cannot enforce this again due to 1RR; I suggest someone else does. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Done. --TBM10 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC) TBM10, just as a note, the end result of the discussion above was that File:President Trump 2.jpg be used. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, most agreed that the File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg was not appropriate or NPOV. Overall, most people agreed that Image 3, or File:President Trump 2.jpg, should be used as it is more neutral.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Oh my god, people. Please look at the many discussions of the infobox image, which received votes from scores of editors and went through a formal analysis and vote based on photography and appearance attributes. Just because a small handful of editors now seem to like this one just based on gut feeling, saying "I like this one", you're making a mess of something that actually achieved a proper consensus. Respect it, or again open a full RfC with multiple image options and tagging multiple WikiProjects and other relevant groups. What you have here is an embarrassing form of 'consensus'. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC) 100% agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC) I agree. Far too much discussion on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump New Picture

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I know, his picture was changed 30 minutes to an hour ago but based on all the other president pictures, it is no good and looks unprofessional in my opinion. I found a picture that looks like a presidential picture and I think should be used. I am currently getting permission from the photographer. Example 1 Example 2 --Dyl1G (User talk:Dyl1G) 2:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC) If you can get permission, Example 1 is pretty good. If you receive permission, let us know. As for now, the current image is more NPOV than the original, but hopefully you can get their permission.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC) @Dyl1G and ZiaLater: I understand you are proposing a picture change in good faith, however it will not be accepted unless you run a formal RfC. The sooner you start the process, the sooner it will end. Besides, I personally don't see how the longstanding picture is disparaging; it actually gathered consensus repeatedly over many many other pictures that various editors deemed "more presidential". In this picture, Trump looks serious and attentive, his face is in focus, the colors are neutral, well it's just fine. (And for the record, I once advocated for a picture change as well, at least an edit of this one to remove the microphone and background artefact, but I accepted consensus to keep this one). — JFG talk 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC) FYI, the last big push to change the image consisted of a week or two of heated debate in a series of talk threads, followed by a big RfC. After the RfC got several dozen !votes, the activity died to the point that the archive bot archived the RfC before it was closed. And nobody complained about the lack of a close, nobody restored the RfC from the archive or asked that that be done, because we were all suffering from severe infobox image fatigue. I think many of us still are, I know I am. In the end, all that editor time and energy were wasted. My advice is to wait for the official White House portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC) @Mandruss: Agreed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC) @JFG How do I start a formal Rfc? --Dyl1G (User talk:Dyl1G) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC) @Dyl1G: Instructions are at WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues. Enjoy! — JFG talk 20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

This may well have been been discussed before, and have rolled off into the archives. My query isn't about the niceties of being the oldest person to become a first-term president, which is all I see above,[8] but about whether it's appropriate to have it in the lead at all. Mentioning it further down (currently in the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section) is OK I guess, but in the lead? As User:1937 cogently said above, "Obama was the first black President (that's big), if Hillary won, she would've been the first female President (that's big), but the oldest person?" I'd remove it myself, but I'm kind of scrupulous about not editing the article, in order to remain able to admin it. Bishonen | talk 08:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

@Mandruss: OK, but wouldn't McCain's/Trump's choice of running mate be a "factor in longevity" too? ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I get it. I think. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You did indeed. According to one opinion writer, Pence was "born to be Vice President"; according to most, Palin was not. I think she might have regarded herself as born to be the first female President, though -- albeit not necessarily the first elected female president... --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bishonen on this, but would support a compromise: how about if we keep it in the lead for now, but not in the lead paragraph of the lead? Per WP:Begin, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: No objection to that edit, which you already made. There remains an organization issue, with para 3 referring to his nomination, then ending at "oldest to assume the presidency" with no mention of his election to the office. But that's a separate issue, and relatively minor. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, the 70 stuff has been put back into the opening paragraph by this edit which lacked an edit summary. The editor who did that was User:Giovanosky. I don't see consensus for that edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I already said I don't object to the move down. You want me to do something else? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to make you aware of it. I guess that after some more hours I'll revert back, if someone else doesn't do so first. It's very annoying that 1RR facilitates and incentivizes drive-by editing at this BLP by making it much harder to revert the drive-by edits. Obviously, there was no consensus for putting it back in the lead, but admins don't seem interested in enforcing the consensus requirement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We are in agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Different mood two days later, different response.
Part of an admin's job appears to be to find reasons not to use the powers only they possess to enforce Wikipedia behavior policies. We are required to jump through almost impossible bureaucratic hoops, requiring much time that should be spent working on articles, to even stand a chance of any action. And, when we do that, we are required to spend even more time defending ourselves against boomerang claims that are clearly spurious attempts at diversion from the discussion of their behavior. The result is a house of mirrors beyond any human admin's capacity to assess, which is the whole point of the bad-faith diversion. That's how the game is currently played, many bad-faith editors are very skilled at playing it, and admins watch silently and do nothing about it because there would be an outcry from other bad-faith editors if they did so. Been there, done that, several times, and several times too many. The last time, the admin wrote the close statement in Swahili. English Wikipedia is broken and has been since I've been around.
This is an off topic rant, but a rare one from me and I guess I've earned it. Any editor is free to collapse me. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen - I'd be OK either way. I do see others mention trivia items that would not seem to be suitable for Lead status so I guess it's acceptable, but where are guidelines or criteria on picking what to include ?? Trump would be oldest, and first billionaire, and first without prior government or military service, and first with foreign-born wife, and first divorced man, and first Twitter president, and .. ehh, I guss whatever enough people want to include will do but it still seems kind of fluff. Markbassett (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I repeat that it is not a trivia item. Bad shit happens when presidents die or become disabled while in office, which is why advanced age is usually a campaign issue. Why do you think the Trump campaign was always talking about Clinton's health? If it were mere trivia, I would oppose it in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - Unless otherwise clarified, that sure looks like personal opinion rather than a WP guideline or criteria regarding side-remarks in a BLP. Just sayin we've got a LOT of 'firsts' here, and the "someone said of course its important" approach looks infeasible. It sounds a lot like the just-seen Climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead, and does not give a basis of inclusion. And yeah, still think trivia fluff that do not meet WP:DUE, but eh it seems a precedent of fluff exists. Markbassett (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no WP guideline that says advanced age is a relevant issue as to U.S. presidents. We don't have guidelines like that. We are allowed, no, encouraged, to apply reasoning and editorial judgment, which is what I've done in this thread. We can go down a WP:DUE path if you like, surveying reliable sources to see exactly how much they have talked about Trump's age or the new age record. And we can debate endlessly about just how much RS is enough to justify one sentence in the lead. I would prefer not to, which means I would defer to a simple democratic vote among editors who can make some kind of cogent argument one way or the other. I think I qualify as one of those. I don't feel this is RfC-worthy however. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, "oldest person thing" is no way to speak about a senior citizen. Secondly, a "democratic election" has put this "thing" in the lead. Thirdly, talk pages are a place to discuss the improvement of articles, not countries.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the header correctly. The word "thing" refers to the part of the text referring to Trump's age relative to other presidents. Dustin (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I read the header entirely correctly. The fact is that you did not read my comment correctly.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Photo 2 Rfc

Should the infobox image be replaced with one of these photos?:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3
• 
  Image 4
• 
  Image 5
• 
  Current

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

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

How is the current image not NPOV? Anyway, I really don't think we should switch to a black and white picture. Dustin (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any change to infobox image before the official White House portrait is released, as a cost/benefit fail (actually I Oppose this RfC). Oppose this choice in particular, for various reasons including B&W. OP's NPOV argument appears to be a misunderstanding of NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• No, I am saying the black and white is a possibility but I can't find anything else. I am looking for suggestions while trying to the get this picture approved from author Picture Dyl1G (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G

@Dyl1G: Ok, but that's a misuse of the RfC process. An RfC is for asking a specific question ("Do you have any suggestions?" is not a specific question) or making a specific proposal, and seeking a consensus on the question or proposal. If your intent is to solicit photo suggestions, you should remove the {{Rfc}} template from this thread and assume that there is enough participation at this article to get a fair number of viable suggestions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Dyl1G: You dropped the Politics listing. Fixed.[9] ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - Please let's replace the current photo of Trump that is in the infobox here, and on the United States 2016 President Elections page! Anything is better, as long as he is smiling and doesn't have a microphone obscuring him.--FeralOink (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose until an official presidential photo is released. Until then, the longstanding photo should remain, as it has undergone much discussion and survived all of them. Chase|^talk 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Compare the cover photos at Great Again and Audacity of Hope. Also compare the official presidential portrait photos of Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama. A grin is appropriate (and true-to-life) for Obama, not Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• All I am saying is that the photo seems a bit biased in my opinion. That's all. Dyl1G (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G

  That's because you (like many editors, so don't feel bad) don't really understand WP:NPOV, as I and others have said previously. One immediately above, at 01:07. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - If anyone is given the opportunity to change the picture, there will be bias. Just wait for an official presidential photo to be released, then use that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adotchar (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – First, per Mandruss, I oppose the very idea of changing the picture at this point. Second, the proposed image looks absolutely dreadful to me, just like probably the current one looks dreadful to the OP. And we won't ever settle an WP:ILIKEIT debate, so i advocate a WP:SNOW close for this RfC. — JFG ^talk 09:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  Support said close (abort), as I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, This RfC, even though handled poorly, is only a few days old and already you're ready to shut it down. What are you afraid of? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: Assuming facts not in evidence. Who said I'm afraid of something? Did you read my !vote argument? Anyway, I don't have the power to shut down RfCs. I stated my view that we should do so, and, if that view gains consensus, the RfC will be shut down. That's how RfCs work, and in fact an RfC was aborted on this page just weeks ago because a consensus was reached to abort it. I welcome you to particpate in the process instead of making spurious and fallacious arguments to try to circumvent it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Dyl1G: With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Given the present location I doubt this RfC is going to get much attention as it is. This entire talk page is beginning to resemble a wall of graffiti -- who notices any one item anymore. i.e.One voice in a middle of an arguing crowd. Thanx for the effort at least. I'll see what I can do to bring attention to the matter. I added the other photos to this gallery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Not being handled very well? Is it anybody's fault that 27 threads were started after they started this one? I'm sure Dyl1G appreciates the "all due respect", but your reasoning frankly sucks, and that's been an ongoing pattern throughout your disruption of this talk page on this issue. Let's note that you found a solution to that problem 22 minutes after you complained about it,[10] but your complaint remains. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Excuse me, but I extended respect and merely mentioned a general criticism that the RfC wasn't being noticed by many, explained that it was buried in a sea of talk, and did not fault anyone personally as it is obviously no one editor's fault. Once again this is not the place to vent petty peeves with repeated personal attacks. Anyway, it appears there will not be enough support for a comparable, pleasing and formal image for Trump's bio', as the Clinton bio' has received, yet you're still venting. Please try to calm yourself, try not to violate talk page rules again and confine your remarks to article improvement as the rest of us have done. Thanks for your patience and understanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC) No, you didn't just say that it was buried, you said that the RfC was not being handled very well. Nobody felt it was unduly buried until you did, and you could have just solved the perceived problem without a comment about the RfC not being handled very well. No post here was necessary or useful. That's the difference between facilitating collaboration and trying to undermine it. I'm quite calm, by the way, and opposing talk page disruption is a widely accepted way to indirectly improve the article and is anything but a talk page violation. It is not personal attack. It would be personal attack if one said something like, "You are an incredibly obtuse person who should spend a lot less time talking and more time watching and learning about accepted Wikipedia decision-making process." The talk page violation is your persistent disruption. You and I are indeed involved in a days-long one-on-one conflict, and the difference between us is that I'm supporting process and using sound reasoning, and you have done neither. Don't expect me to give you the last word on this, as you have absolutely no leg to stand on. However, we can continue this on my user talk page if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Please don't lecture me on process when you just took it upon yourself to suppress supporting opinion across the page. And your recital here about what you didn't say, but said anyway, is sort of a cheap stunt and clearly a personal attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Behave like a belligerent newbie for days, and expect to be treated like one. We would have been at WP:ANI about 24 hours ago with a disruptive editing complaint, but I'm well aware of the ineffectiveness of that approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC) The only time ANI's are not effective is when peevish editors go there expecting to get a ruling about peckish issues that don't involve policy violations. When there is a clear policy violation they are effective. Problem? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC) If only that were true. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support (image 1) -- We need to treat both the Trump and Clinton biographies in a fair and balanced manner for the sake of the readers (remember them?) who come to Wikipedia to see a neutral presentation. Both biographies deserve a formal/smiling pose of their subjects. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all of the above – there is nothing wrong with the current picture. Wait until the official White House portrait is release to change the picture. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The current image is unproblematic, and we already have consensus for a replacement when the official White House portrait soon becomes available. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There's nothing wrong with the current photo, never has been. Wait until his official presidential portrait is available then we will use that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: there have been too many changes and too many votes. Let's wait for the official portrait.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I would prefer image 5 if the microphone wasn't in the way. IMO image 3 is our next best option because he's smiling. The current image should be replaced until his official portrait is available. It is POV to have an infobox image where he has a uneasy/troubled look on his face when there are so many other images to choose from. Shocking that on Hillary Clinton's page, her infobox image is of her smiling... Meatsgains (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support (1, 2 or 4) - to put it bluntly, I think the current image is a disgrace to wikipedia. Not the picture per se, but the fact that it is used in the infobox, or in any infobox at all. As far as NPOV is concerned, I just find this absolutely sickening, even though I'm definitely not a fan of Donald Trump. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: this and any more like RfCs that come up until there is an official photo. Objective3000 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Seems silly to change it after all this time and other RFCs, we should wait until the official white house portrait is unveiled.  g@rycompugeek  talk 20:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a debate about personal preferences, which will never be productive. The current image is perfectly fine until they release an official portrait. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing wrong with current photo and wait until an official one is released. --Bod (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until official photo is released. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Can we use a photo on the Presidential Transition site, for the content is licensed under a CC license? Just wondering since nobody brought this up yet. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Incomplete or ill considered here, the photo has been discussed since he election with general result of wait for the official photo. The proposal above gives no basis to reconsider that, a basis of how these photos were chosen or any rationale why they would be preferred or why a change is much needed. The existing photo is not problematic by WP:BLP items at WP:BLPTALK or WP:MUG, and is reasonable by WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:IUP. And these have no other special context to prefer them - they're not iconic of the moment or acceptance speech, not even after the election. The existing photo actually seems somewhat more appropriate as the image he won with, but I'll suggest that status quo should apply -- because if we change this one on a whim, then what's to stop another coming up tomorrow and the next day and dueling whims ??? We'd have to toss anything out in a couple of months anyway when the official photo arrives so wait for the official photo. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• Oppose-This is getting ridiculous. I was once in favor of changing the photograph, but we have now had far too many time-wasting discussions on the issue. Just wait until we have the official photo. Display name 99 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a photoshopping contest. --Bod (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I personally do not see this as a very flattering picture and think that a better one (particularly looking at the camera) should be used. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Additional Comment - In connection with my above support, I see "Wait for an official photo" as more of an excuse to do nothing than a choice based on the photo itself. The article is being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per day, if there is a better, recent photo of him, it should be changed/used immediately for all of the future viewers of the article to see including the majority who are not talk-page viewers or editors at all. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - wait for official WH photo. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support three-quarter portrait #1 for now, and look forward to official portrait as that seems to be unquestioned consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. The current photo is fine. Agree that an official portrait would probably suffice unless it is peculiar in some way. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The photo is out of context, and shows Trump with sort of a frown with his eyes shifted to the left. In terms of president's and notable people's biographies, the image is far from fine. Raises the question of why this bio isn't treated the same as the others, esp since there are formal images that show Trump smiling to chose from. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you obsess over having him smile? Look at the official portrait of FDR or Trump's choice of a cover photo for his own campaign book. The presidency is not about being cheerful! — JFG ^talk 05:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"Obsess" is unfair. And it's not like that Q hasn't been answered before, in detail, in Talk archives. (And Trump's book had a specific focus/purpose. Not a BLP. Sheesh.) IHTS (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks IHTS. -- JFG, once again, it's about treating the Trump biography the same way other such bio's are treated. As mentioned, the Trump bio is viewed by the readers thousands of times a day, and as many have already expressed, they are going to wonder why Trump's bio/photo isn't par with the others, esp when they compare it to Clinton's, which many have done and will continue to do, esp on inauguration day. Don't expect you to acknowledge any of this at this point -- I only reiterate for newcomers to the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I understand where you're coming from; I once advocated for a change of picture, or at least some retouching of this one. Ultimately, this choice is very subjective. All along the campaign, there have been many debates over Trump and Clinton's pictures, including a particular photographer pushing his portraits… Ultimately it's a matter of WP:JDLI and for both candidates I guess the least-bad image outlasted the other options. I also believe that stability over time and consistency across articles are more important than style. I appreciate your effort to rectify bias; I just don't happen to believe that the stability of this particular picture is a result of anti-Trump bias (and God knows we've seen a lot of such bias). — JFG ^talk 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support the current photo looks ridiculous with smoke coming out of his ear. Nor is the photo representative of a decent serious pose. To an unbiased viewer, it could easily be assumed that the photo is a back-handed slap, trying to coast under the radar and still maintain a narrative that Wikipedia is an unbiased source for knowledge, as opposed to a cog in what is viewed by half the country as a corrupt and biased media. Mojavegreen (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support – The current image is definitely not representative of a neutral pose for which the main image of an article should be. Any of the above selections would be infinitely better than the current, which to me, seems to portray Donald Trump as not-so-good. NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Current Trump picture violates policy

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The present "long standing" picture of Trump is a clear violation of Policy regarding Biographies of Living People as the image shows Trump with a frown and eyes shifted to his left. There were other more favorable images used in the Trump biography before this one came along. Consensus can not override POLICY. The image is clearly "disparaging". Are Wikipedia administrators, etc, just going to sit there and let this continue? Currently we have good support for a better image, while there should be overwhelming agreement that Wikipedia not be used to express political POV's. Again, how many people have to weigh in before someone does something around here, and then, how much longer will the debate continue?? At this rate, with all the foot dragging and arguing, the current picture will still be in place when Trump is sworn in. (!) WP credibility is sinking fast in the eyes of at least half of Wikipedia's readership, as I know there are a lot of Clinton supporters that have not stooped to using Wikipedia to express their particular political peeves. Can we please treat the Trump biography like any other and include a favorable and formal pose? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Nice try, but the policy you pointed to says that a photo cannot be "misleading." The current photo is not "mislading" at all. If you were to randomly bump into Donald Trump, that's what he would look like. --Proud User (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Many editors disagree in good faith with your premises, including me. Your policy interpretation here is exactly that, your policy interpretation; I see no such explicit prohibition against this image in Wikipedia policy. Your perception of the image is exactly that, your perception; I see no frown. I do see a serious and sober expression. Unlike you, I recognize my perception as my perception, my interpretation as my interpretation. And I don't go around accusing fellow editors of bad faith or incompetence en masse. Yes, I suspect Wikipedia administrators, etc, are just going to sit there and let this continue, because this is how the Wikipedia collaborative process is designed to work. If I'm not mistaken we have a hard-fought RfC consensus for the current image, and that consensus will not be overridden by a relatively few editors outside RfC with significant opposition. I believe there is still a thread on this page soliciting suggestions for good replacement photos. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC) As I do agree it's not the best photo choice it does not seem to violate the policy. If you are going to complain about it at least suggest a new one.... Dyl1G (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G @Proud User:"Nice try"? The BOLP policy I refer to says Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. It would have helped if you clicked on the link and read the item. Trump's expression is clearly disparaging, not at all the best picture to represent him with. The image looks like a media sniper shot, typically taken by photographers who lie in wait to capture the worst possible expression. They did it to Hillary also. @Mandruss: We're not debating whether the image looks like Trump. I respect your concern for established consensus but it was almost entirely established before Trump was elected. Since then there are new and important things to be considered, esp since consensus is now marginal and clearly split for obvious reasons. Given this situation, all personal opinions should be set aside, and the biography be allowed to receive the same treatment as the others. This has not happened, even after repeated objections to the current photo. We now have two sides arguing, and it looks like there will never be any resolution until long after Trump is sworn in and an official government photo is made available. We can belabor about what Trump's expression is, i.e. frown, or sober and serious, and prolong resolution indefinitely if that is your intention. The fact remains, there are far better images available, yet we have a marginal consensus not to use them. Good faith or not, that is a fact. Personal opinion aside, Trump has not received the same formal and favorable image Clinton and other famous living people have received, all the while such photos are available. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Since then there are new and important things to be considered That's a fair reason to seek a new consensus via a new RfC (I would oppose such an RfC at this point for the reason I have given in the existing RfC, but it would at least be a legitimate use of established process). Not a legitimate reason to argue for a new consensus in unstructured, open discussion which would be unlikely to involve more than 6 or 8 editors. RfC consensuses generally require RfCs to change, and that is especially true for RfCs that had such high participation and involved so much debate. We don't so easily throw out the result of that much editor time and energy. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Hello User:Gwillhickers, I agree. It does seem odd and out of place for a U.S. Presidential politician to have an unflattering frowning photograph on a WP page. Compare this to Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. All other U.S. Presidents have a smiling photo of them, with an American flag in the background. Even the Hillary Clinton's photograph has an American flag in the background with her smiling. Gwillhickers, I encourage you to find a smiling photo of President-elect Trump, with a U.S. flag in the background, and replace this controversial image. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Fine, so go !vote in the existing RfC. Participate in the process. This thread is out of process. And following your suggestion would be a clear violation of the ArbCom restrictions in effect at this article, making a consensus-free edit already known to be highly controversial. You have given exceedingly bad advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd : I agree that the current image is a disaster but you should be voting here. We already have better, more flattering images of Trump, one of which even has a US flag in the background. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC closure

Thanks to User:Sandstein for closing the RFC at the top of this talk page. The RFC close says: "there's no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead." And, a template at the top of this talk page says, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." So it sounds to me like anyone can remove the material in question and it must then stay removed. Is that correct? I'm not going to remove it, and did not support removal during the RFC, but still it would be good to have some clarity here in case it is removed by someone else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "material" in question since there was no clear consensus for inclusion(in the lead that is). --Malerooster (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been restored without consensus.[11] Why do you think that's acceptable, User:Volunteer Marek? In the same edit, you also defied consensus here, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it was *removed* without consensus. If an RfC is closed as "no consensus. Discuss again" then we retain the status quo. You know this as you've used this very argument in other instances to include your preferred text in articles.

The "oldest person" was already there. I just moved it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Per discretionary sanctions, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Moreover, the material you moved up was deliberately moved down pursuant to the talk page discussion that I already linked to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Please stop trying to WP:GAME discretionary sanctions (again). Consensus is required to reinstate EDITS. That means consensus is required to REMOVE the text.

Here is Sandstein's wording: " I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election."

He closed the RfC on Nov 13, 20:54. At the time of the closure the article contained the text: [12]. This means that consnesus is required to REMOVE the text and the editor who started edit warring about it (again) was doing so in contravention of discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We have been through all this before, and admins rejected that interpretation.[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, that link does not show what you are trying to pretend it does. The text was in the article for awhile. The RfC said no consensus. Somebody went and removed it anyway, despite the RfC. End of story. Revisit the discussion when the lede gets bigger.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact NeilN appears to be making exactly the same point I'm making when he points out: "I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, VM, that after reviewing the talk page discussion with Melanie and Neil, you appear to have a very good point regarding the sex material. But not the age material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the age material, is the crux of the debate about *where* it should be, or if it should be included at all? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The age discussion is located above. Both removal and placement were discussed, and there is zero consensus for it to be in the lead (where you put it).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: @Volunteer Marek: I've been watching this since the beginning, and it's not entirely clear to me what the "status quo" is. Both sides have good arguments in my opinion. The best path forward I think would be for you guys to find some sort of short-term compromise. The RfC closure says 1-2 short sentences if the material is included. The disputed material is effectively 3 sentences right now (1 long sentence with semicolon, 1 normal sentence). Why don't you two just work on trimming the material to a sentence, or even half a sentence? ~Awilley (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be very glad to consider any shortened compromise language. But someone else ought to draft it because things that I do seem not to enjoy AGF these days.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

<-- I'll Agf you to do it. I might disagree with what you propose but I'll, um, give you a chance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, my sense is that what Trump said has gotten a lot more enduring publicity than the subsequent allegations against him, or his claims about a "smear campaign". (Incidentally, Dave Chappelle had some hilarious jokes about what Trump said in 2005, two days ago on SNL.) Anyway, how about the following? "On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about kissing and groping women or being able to do so without first seeking permission; he subsequently apologized for those 2005 comments."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As much as I like chiastic structure it seems awkward in the middle to state in two ways that he bragged about kissing/groping, and do we really have to mention twice that the comments were from 2005? ~Awilley (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to strike out the latter "2005" and am doing so now. On the other thing, I think a "chiasmus" is defined as "a rhetorical device in which two or more clauses are balanced against each other by the reversal of their structures in order to produce an artistic effect." I don't think the stuff after the word "or" (in my draft) reverses the stuff before the word "or" so I don't think I am guilty of chiasmus. Sources describe what Trump said in different ways, and I'm trying to briefly capture some of that diversity, instead of limiting ourselves to a single gospel, so to speak.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Anythingyouwant, and Awilley: Here's my proposal for the shortest meaningful version (copied from RFC discussion when Dervorguilla calculated an optimal word count and JasperTech challenged us to fit the essential points in WP:Brilliant prose): After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances. Add one quote after "emerged" mentioning the Access Hollywood tape, and one quote after "advances" for the allegations. Or better, per WP:LEADCITE, just link to the relevant detailed articles. — JFG ^talk 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:JFG, I prefer leaving both the allegations and the claim of a smear campaign for later in the BLP. If any of the allegations is litigated then it may become more noteworthy so as to be leadworthy, but right now it's undue weight for the lead. Almost nobody can name any of the women making the allegations. The fact that he made the 2005 comments is undisputed and fully attributable to him, whereas the allegations are very much disputed. The media has quoted and described the 2005 comments much more than it has quoted or described the allegations. We should not mention the allegations in the lead without including Trump's denial, per WP:BLP, which would give the allegations even more undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: If we mention only the lewd comments, the statement would feel incomplete and undue (imaginary mental dialog of John Q. Random Wikipedia reader: Oh, Trump did some dirty talk in 2005, so what? Ah, some women have actually complained about his sexual advances, now that makes sense. Wait, he denies the allegations, this story emerged in the last weeks of the presidential campaign and nobody sued him for sexual assault? Alright, case closed.) We can't let the reader hanging at "dirty talk"; it's either all or nothing, obviously including Trump's denial. Here's my proposed update:

After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, fifteen women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances. Trump denied the allegations and blamed the incident on an electoral smear campaign.

Consensus on that? — JFG ^talk 10:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No. We just had a RfC on this. If you want this "topic" covered in the lede, put together a new RfC and seek consensus. We now have 4-5 editors commenting here on a closed RfC that had input from 30-40 people. --Malerooster (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't filibuster consensus. The original RfC was closed as "no consensus" which means we retain the status quo - the quote stays in. A couple more reasonable editors are trying to work out a compromise version. You're just trying to sabotage that effort and force your way through mindless edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, you can't filibuster consensus, that's the point, there was no consensus for including this so it stays out for now. Gain consensus for inclusion and add it. Talk about mindless. --Malerooster (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, even Anythingyouwant above admits that the consensus needs to be *for removal*, not for inclusion, since this was in the article for awhile. There was no consensus for removing it, so it stays. Gain consensus for removing and then then remove it. Talk about mindless. Also read the discussion on the issue by administrators already linked above [14].

User:Awilley can you please comment on this? It looked like a few of us were trying to work out a compromise version, which was quickly sabotaged by Malerooster and a couple of others, who didn't even BOTHER participating in the discussion [15] [16]. See, this is what happens when you try to do it by book. Other, cynical BATTLEGROUND warriors show up, completely ignore the rules or try to WP:GAME them. Trying to reason with them is a non-starter as they're not interest in compromise. Reporting them is a huge time sink and mostly a waste of effort, especially with admins being understaffed. This is what happens.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, stop accusing me of anything, especially sabotage just because you are clueless. The RfC was about inclusion of the "material" NOT removing it. There was no consensus for inclusion. Just because you don't like the outcome of the RfC doesn't mean you do some run around with a few other editors after 30-40 editors commented on this for over 4 weeks. --Malerooster (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cut it out with stuff like calling editors "clueless". I like the outcome of the RfC. What I don't like is you misrepresenting and WP:GAMEing it to push your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are clueless, especially when you say to push your POV. You are the one pushing your POV. What is my POV? You have no clue which is obvious. --Malerooster (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Both of you, please cut it out with the "clueless," "mindless," "POV," and similar name calling. And don't say " he started it!" Just be grownups and stop it. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

JFG, you said it's important to mention "nobody sued him" but then your draft omits that. Also, your draft doesn't say who made the lewd comments, and omits something else very critical: Trump apologized. As I recall, the Access Hollywood story was huge news even before any women started making allegations, so I still don't think the allegations belong in the lead. The Bill Clinton article is listed as a "good article" and here's the grand total of sex stuff in the lead: "In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice during a lawsuit against him, both related to a scandal involving White House (and later Department of Defense) employee Monica Lewinsky." Nothing about the allegations from all the other women (Jones, Willey, Broadhurst, Flowers, et cetera), either by name or not. And doesn't it tell you something that all those names are well known compared with the fact that almost no one can name the women who allege that Trump made unwelcome advances?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: If we add more detail, that would defeat the purpose of summarizing. About the Bill Clinton lead, I agree (I even made that very point in a prior discussion), but let's not compare them too much per WP:OTHERSTUFF. — JFG ^talk 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:JFG, the lead currently says "On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about kissing and groping women and being able to do so without permission; he subsequently apologized for those comments." This seems okay to me for now. As more history unfolds, it seems likely that this will eventually get squeezed out of the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malerooster: For the record, I don't want this topic covered in the lead (check my !vote in the RfC); however I respect the potential interpretation of RfC closure as "no consensus to exclude" and I'm trying to build a consensus version of the minimal stuff to include. i wold be equally happy with interpreting the closure as "no consensus to include", but I'm not going to fight either way. And note that while we discuss, the contents are indeed excluded because the pre-RfC version was deemed excessive, hence we need to agree on a short one. — JFG ^talk 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: Hey, sorry, but it seems that the close was pretty clear, even bolded, that there was no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead. We don't NEED to agree on a short one just to include something UNLESS a NEW consensus forms to have this topic in the lede. It has been readded by Volunteer Marek, who accuses me of mindless edit warring. --Malerooster (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malerooster: Again, my opinion is to exclude this info from the lead but I have decided not to fight this particular battle. — JFG ^talk 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, stop misrepresenting the closure of the RfC. If there was no consensus on the material it means it stays in until a new consensus is reached. That's what we're trying to do here Malerooster, and you're not contributing. In fact, you're busy making sure that compromise and consensus are impossible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is you that is misrepresenting the closure to push your own POV. --Malerooster (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Should be removed, but biased editors will undo changes to put back in even though trump has already won and they can't influence anyone with their pathetic (and desperate) biased attempts anymore. seriously insane people, very harmful to encyclopedia. why not ban them? KMilos (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:BATTLEGROUND. You've already been given a DS warning I believe? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As has been discussed extensively in other sections, our consensus policy says that when there's no consensus, we should go back to the last stable version. Volunteer Marek, it's hard not to take your position as other than game-playing. The content has been heavily edit-warred over since it was introduced, and then tagged while the dispute was raging on this talk page. To suggest that this content was stable is ridiculous, frankly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Controversial" is not the same thing as "unstable". It was stable, remaining in the article for weeks. It was "controversial" but so what? Anything can be made controversial with enough complaining and soapboxing, as is being done here. Anything can be made controversial if editors choose to ignore policy and instead run around calling those that disagree with them "insane".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, it was in the article for weeks because an active RfC was going on. --Malerooster (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The RfC closure clearly states No consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead, i.e. no consensus to include. Out it goes. Just like the election, it's over. Time to accept and move on. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The trick you're trying to pull is in those two little letters "i.e". No consensus here means "retain the status quo". Which in this case would mean "no consensus to exclude".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, this stuff is barely a month old. The status quo is without this stuff. Appeals to the "stable" version are nonsense (as they always are). Athenean (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, then why did you correct yourself? Maybe because the RfC was about if the "material" should belong in the lead and there was NO consensus for that. It was NOT about removing the "material". I actually think it would have been more noteworthy if Trump had lost the election, but that's irrelevant. --Malerooster (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The closure clearly states that the topic should be revisited after some time, not that anything need to change immediately. Quite frankly, I find the idea that a serious issue such as this shouldn't matter anymore just because you won an election (or "won" isn't quite accurate in his case) to be ludicrous; if anything the sexual misconduct controversy is even more relevant. This material has been included in the lead for weeks and is the stable version. It is also clearly supported by a consensus when counting arguments that are actually based on policy and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IVOTETRUMP. --Tataral (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tataral, of course its not the "stable" version. That would be the version before the "material" was added. --Malerooster (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Stable version" is just an appeal to tradition fallacy to hide the obvious. When the arguments run out, it's time to wheel out the "stable version". There is nothing more desperate than appeals to imagined "stable versions". Athenean (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's part of the DS regime. So abide.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Last stable version" is defined here.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) The Access Hollywood tape may have had some relevance before the election, because it could have affected the outcome, but it clearly didn't, and has lost its relevance. Since there was no consensus to include even before the election, there is even less now. Length is irrelevant. There is no consensus to include, period. Claims of "consensus" are entirely misleading. Athenean (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a good argument for exclusion indeed. — JFG ^talk 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Slavoj Žižek endorsement : 'Trump is really a centrist liberal'

That sounds like a interesting characterization by one of the leading philosophers globally. Guardian Slate Zizek Opinion piece in Die Zeit Where to mention it in the article? Polentarion Talk 21:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a good find, Polentarion. Žižek is not alone in making that assessment. There are GOP politicians in the US who concur with Žižek as well as people who are more centrist. I will look for some other sources and try to insert something about Žižek's views. Thank you!--FeralOink (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Youre welcome. I added some other links, from Slate till Die Zeit. I like as well well the joke about both being interested in slowenian women with a 30 years age difference ;) I added a section in Žižek's article but I am more cautious about editing this honey pot. Polentarion Talk 23:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting theory but at this point I think it qualifies as an interesting fringe theory. None of those publications are regarded as mainstream, nor do they so regard themselves, as far as I know. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Die Zeit is a major weekly in Germany and very much mainstream, the British Grauniad might lean to the left but is mainstream overthere as well. And Žižek himself is among the top 100 global intellectuals. Polentarion Talk 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Polentarion: We're in the US, not Germany. Yes, Die Zeit is indeed "very much mainstream over there". But so is RT in Russia. That doesn't make them mainstream here. Also, your statement that "Žižek himself is among the top 100 global intellectuals" may be not be supported by quantitative global rankings (such as citation count). Thank you for trying to improve this article by citing Žižek. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: The en WP is not about America. If we includes e.g. me, we are on the globe, not in the states. And Zizek has three professorships, on at New York University, one in the University of London and one in Lubljana. I started to edit on the Zizek-Trump story in Zizek's entry and have not yet found the section to do so in the Trump article. Any idea? Polentarion Talk 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Polentarion: Thank you for providing this additional, very helpful information. Žižek does accordingly qualify as a "highly reputable" source, and you can cite him in passing. I would recommend adding a one-sentence paraphrase in the article body and a pertinent quotation of up to 49 words as a ref quote in the citation (not in the body). As for where to place it, you're on your own. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Youre very welcome. I will go along that line. Polentarion Talk 23:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It is true. Trump has supported one-for-all healthcare for America and his positions are very moderate on many issues. Same with French Le Pens... but media love to squeal far right far right far right. they are in trouble if there actually is a far right as they will have cried wolf. KMilos (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but Mme le Pen tries to lead the far right party of her father into right wing populism. Zizek sees Trump as leading the GOP back to the center (economically and social policy wise away from Bible belters and Teabaggers) and camouflaging that shift with politically incorrect behaviour and quotes. Polentarion Talk 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Polentarion: Based on your comment, Žižek needs may want to study WP's "Theodore Roosevelt" entry before making further observations about Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend to not take Wikipedia articles for serious, I know who wrote them. However I like the idea about America's republicans being able to reinvent themselves. But "speak softly and carry a big stick" doesn't fit with the Donald, right? Polentarion Talk 22:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Zizek is a contrarian polemic. He's not a political scientist or historian of US politics. He also seems to be unfamiliar with Trump's actual stated policies on issues, framing him as pro-LGBT and not pro-life, despite Trump having vowed to overturn gay-marriage through the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade. Zizek's uninformed input does not belong in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the claim that those sources are not mainstream. That doesn't make any sense. But many people have commented on Trump. There has to be a special reason to cite any of them here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

First I disagree with the deletion [17], but I am not sure wether I am under sanctions if I revert once. The funny thing is that Zizek -. which is a professor in New York - would be the first scholalry source at all in section based on press clippings, and not any academic (political scientist or historian) has been quoted so far. Žižek does qualify both as a "highly reputable" and contrarian source, but he is being heard and noticed globally. I ask to reinstore the section, any improvement is welcome. Polentarion Talk 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Zizek as (apparently) a Marxist-Leninist is not mainstream, and his opinion that Trump is a "centrist" is potentially distorted. Every man, every woman, every child, and every pet poodle has an opinion on Mr Trump, but we can't include everyone. I haven't seen any reason to include Zizek.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed War Crimes

Why isn't there any mention of Trump's much-discussed proposal [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] that the United States military target and kill the families of terrorists, an action that would be considered by most to be a war crime? Seems like such a significantly controversial part of his campaign, that it probably ought to be mentioned in the article's lead, alongside his proposed ban on allowing Muslims to immigrate to the United States - but I can't find anything about this proposal anywhere in the article. --Jpcase (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jpcase: I believe Mr. Trump has made more than one "much-discussed" "significantly controversial" proposal. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This definitely wouldn't be the article for it. Something like Political positions of Donald Trump or the one for his presidential campaign might be more appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. And even there subject to policy, and I don't know the details. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: @Volunteer Marek: @Mandruss: I won't push this - but if Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead here, then why wouldn't a proposal of his that the United States military commit a war crime be notable enough for mention anywhere in this article? Shouldn't there at least be a brief mention? --Jpcase (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that that paragraph will be dramatically trimmed or eliminated now that the election is over. Many of us are still in post-election shock, so I'd give it a little time. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jpcase: Point taken. I withdraw my opposition. This is an (obvious) C-class article; its overall quality would not be harmed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Bring up the "President-elect" thing again

I know it's been addressed above, but I strongly suggest not listing Donald Trump as the president-elect when he objectively isn't. If reliable sources are calling him the president-elect, they're objectively wrong, and objectivity is important on Wikipedia. Donald Trump will not be the president-elect until 19 December, no matter what reliable—but still fallible—sources say. All major online dictionaries (Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary) define president-elect as "someone who has been elected president but has not officially started the position," and even Wikipedia's United States presidential election page describes the election as ending after electors cast their votes. Wikipedia is the only source (that I can find) that defines the president-elect as the "apparent winner". I think this is especially important with the petition, that has over 4,000,000 signatures, urging the electoral college to vote Clinton for president (while I don't think it'd ever actually happen, it's still a possibility). YourAuntEggma (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The movement to have the electors change their vote is a stunt and a farce. When Barack Obama was elected president, he became the president-elect. Just because it was Donald Trump who won this time around does not mean that we refuse the president-elect his rightful title. Trump was elected president on November 8, 2016. That is not a matter of dispute. 184.153.89.10 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's been addressed previously. Multiple times. Have you read all of it? Do you have a new argument, or a counter to the consensus argument? If not, why did you bring it up again? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

YourAuntEggma, please consider reading WP:VNT, which provides a helpful explanation of how our verifiability policy is applied in these types of situations. ---Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman, thank you, this helps. I understand now. However, out of curiosity, why does Wikipedia prefer incorrect information given from a reliable source over objectively correct information? YourAuntEggma (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@YourAuntEggma: Probably because objective truth is elusive. More seriously, it has been argued that WP relies excessively on journalistic sources, therefore reflecting a potential systemic bias in the collective zeitgeist. However, for any objectively contested topic, sufficiently strong sources will be representing the contra position and will end up covered in WP with WP:DUE weight. Ultimately, with well-developed WP articles, the reader can learn about the many views about a subject, with appropriate balance about their levels of support in published commentary, and they can make their own opinion based on a fair representation of the issues. As knowledge evolves, so does coverage, which is why WP:Anyone can edit and WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@JFG:} The clear preponderance of reliable sources say he is the president-elect. To my mind, that's the end of the discussion. Help me out here, what am I missing here? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I agree that he is, and I pointed this out to many fellow editors over this tumultuous week. You're not missing anything, except perhaps three decades of rappers' musings on Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, just didn't see the benefit of discussing "WP philosophy"[28] in this case. I'm simple-minded. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, guess I was feeling educational towards my fellow editors this morning. — JFG ^talk 06:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

New photo

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016 has agreed, President-elect of the United States has agreed, List of Presidents of the United States has agreed, Family of Donald Trump has agreed. So why are we STILL using a low-quality 2015 photo of Trump here???? Can we just finally agree here, for once and for all, to change the lead image to this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Sigh. Summoning strength (or trying to), considering wikibreak. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC) You need to get an official photo approved by the individual. Famous folks like Trump have readily available approved photos. It's not up to WP editors to stage a beauty pageant or photoshop retouching bee. That's why we end up with silly threads that say he looks like a chicken in this one and she looks Martian with the red blouse, etc etc. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC) I remember derp face. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Let's wait on this. When President Trump is sworn in, he will have an official picture made for the Armed Forces chain of command. Let's wait and use that picture. IMO, all the pictures shown so far suck.Hilltrot (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Let's not disparage his appearance. This one is very flattering, but it shouldn't be up to us. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC) wow that face, its exactly like my constipation face..we should use it , TheDonald just realising what he got into .lol ..--Stemoc 01:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Post election consensus

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the election a new consensus has emerged (here and here). That there was actually a "consensus" to keep the unflattering picture of Trump over the more favorable/formal poses is troubling and negatively reflects on Wikipedia, the consensus process and the idea of neutrality. Since the election 11 users have expressed a desire to change the existing photo to a better picture, while 5 editors want to keep the existing image. Can we now make the change and treat the Trump article fairly? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Not another picture discussion. Any suggestion that editors here have reached consensus to purposely insist that the photo must be unflattering is a vio of WP:AGF. I hope that isn't what anyone is saying. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC) "Another picture discussion"? I was referring to the existing one. The prior consensus was established before the election, as I've said several times now. I was assuming the editors involved before weren't incredibly stupid and were well aware that the current picture is objectionable. Don't cry 'lack of good faith' when someone assumes they knew what they were doing. There is a new consensus. Can we get on with this without these diversion tactics? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC) There is no "new consensus" sufficient to override the existing hard-fought RfC consensus, as has been explained to you with great clarity. You did not respond to that explanation, and it would be pointless to try because there is no viable response to it. Nothing in the existing RfC consensus said, "This consensus will be void after the election", so you're inventing your own rules. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC) There is an active RfC for the purpose of deciding (1) should the infobox image be changed before the official White House portrait is made available, and (2) if so, what should it be changed to. This has been explained to you above in a thread you created, you didn't like what you heard there, so you started another thread in the hopes of getting a different answer. You were out of process before, you remain out of process, and you are becoming tiresome. WP:IDHT and WP:STICK apply here, and you are approaching WP:DE. See the essay Wikipedia:Process is important. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Wrong on all counts and I'm well aware of the discussion, which, btw, I linked to. Hello? Once again, the former consensus was established before the election and a new consensus has emerged. How long do you plan on referring to the outdated consensus? You should learn that consensus can change, and there is nothing lately that says it hasn't. Sorry. Please don't assume the roll of talk page cop with this apparent effort to ignore new consensus that the above RfC has revealed. We have heard your opinion coming and going -- your name occurs more than 80 times on the existing talk page alone. Please let other editors establish the consensus so we can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, the "Wrong on all counts" link to WP:AGF makes no sense. AGF is not about being right or wrong. I don't doubt your good faith, I doubt your competence on this question. I will now bow out of discussion of this dispute. I've said everything there is to say about this, and it's clear that it would be pointless to continue saying it. If any editor changes the infobox image without an RfC consensus to do so, and I have reason to believe they are aware of this dispute, the question will be resolved at WP:ANI with the possiibility of preventative sanction for disruptive editing. I would much prefer that an admin proactively stated here that my position is correct as to process, so we could get on with our work, but it has been seen above that admins are very reluctant to step in and stop disruption at this article. That leaves ANI as the only remaining option. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Speaking for myself, I've no intention for changing anything without consensus. All that was asked is that the new consensus be recognized, as it is the latest and was established after the election. Acknowledging that the current picture is horrible and raises POV issues would be a sign of good faith, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC) I've no intention for changing anything without consensus I said RfC consensus. Replacing the existing RfC consensus. Acknowledging that the current picture is horrible and raises POV issues would be a sign of good faith No it would not. It would be a sign of agreeing with your viewpoint. I said I would bow out of discussion, but that was incorrect. I will bow of out of discussion when you cease addressing me directly with such flawed reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC) It was flawed reasoning that says the current picture is the best image for the article. We are not trying to decipher hieroglyphs here. Claiming that the existing image is all a matter of how you look at it is a POV cop-out. Esp when there are a fair number of better poses, with smiles, to chose from. Or are those images with smiling poses something that is equally abstract to you and all a matter of "viewpoint"?  BS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC) I am not in love with the current image. I am, however, in love with the reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Process is important. Have you read it? I have. I and others believe that cost exceeds benefit of debating what photo is shown in that infobox for the two or three months before the White House official portrait becomes available. That's a good faith non-spurious argument, I get that you and others disagree with it. You're entitled to disagree with it, but you are not entitled to say that it lacks legitimacy. The way to resolve that good faith disagreement is through an RfC that replaces the existing RfC consensus. The fact that the election is over does not change the fact that there is an enormous weight difference between the existing consensus and the one that you say should replace it, one that is far less formal and involves far fewer editors. I reiterate. Again. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Consensus is an entity unto itself and changes. We must go by the latest consensus, wherever it may be found, esp on the Talk page of the article in question. You can't ignore the existing consensus and say those who don't aren't following process. You say you don't love the existing image, yet you voted to keep it from the start. Yes we have no bananas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC) See my previous comment. I certainly can ignore your little consensus, for the reason I clearly articulated there. All consensuses are not created equal. They have varying weight, and a 1-pound consensus cannot replace a 50-pound consensus. Period. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC) On various Trump related pages there have been hundreds of Talk edits on the subject of his photos. As soon as a decision is made, yet another discussion begins. Let us be honest. He doesn’t photograph well. I’m not saying that as a measure of his character. I’m saying that it is patently obvious from all the discussions. All the photos show him as smirking, growling, yelling, orange, or with some other problem. The photo in a new discussion above has been previously quoted as making him look squinting and constipated. Blaming editors for bad faith because the photo is not compelling is out of line. A suggestion was made that we wait for an official presidential photo. I really don’t see how anyone can argue with that. Objective3000 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC) @Mandruss: Consensus can change, as any experienced editor will tell you. POV issues are nothing new and they will continue to surface every time a controversial subject presents itself. The "50 pound consensus" was established some time before Trump was elected and as such can easily be regarded as out dated. There are new and significant considerations to address now, including newer images of Trump. Were any formal/smiling images of Trump considered when this "50 pound" consensus was established? If so, I'll bow out now and wait for the formal presidential photo to be released. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @Objective3000: This might be easier to accept if there were no formal poses with Trump smiling, however there are and have been. It can easily be argued that a formal pose with Trump smiling, in full display above, be used to replace the one that has been objected to by many editors. Apparently the formal/smiling images of Trump were not considered when the old consensus was established. If we don't come up to speed on this and wait months for a formal pose (esp when several formal poses are presently available) and much of America views the current photo on Inauguration Day, it could cause a good segment of the readership to come to regard Wikipedia as no more credible than the Enquire, just in case anyone's concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC, and any attempt at a new RfC would probably get shouted down, because people are sick and tired of arguing the same issue over and over. (That's undoubtedly why more people aren't chiming in here. Their silence reflects "This matter has been settled, stop bringing it up.") The RfC went on for a long time; it involved many people; it doesn't change because somebody objects to it. As for your accusation that people deliberately chose an unflattering image: personally I thought, and still think, it was the best of the images on offer. Most of them showed him smirking, or with his eyes squinting closed. And yes, many of them were "formal smiling poses". This image shows him looking alert, interested, and curious, as if talking to someone. It's not ideal but it was better than what else was on offer. MelanieN alt (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC) And in case you don't know, Gwillhickers, this is the admin input I was wishing for. I sincerely hope we can drop this, at long last. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Okay, smiling formal poses were available, yet were not chosen. Gosh, my faith is restored. Yes, Trump looks serious -- he also and obviously looks angry -- not shouting or screaming, but clearly pissed-off. Anyway, the first RfC came before the election. Many people chimed in immediately thereafter with complaints about the existing image of Trump. What will you do when others continue to object, as they have and no doubt will continue to do? Shush them away and direct them not to talk because others have already discussed it? Also, Mandruss, with all due respect for administrators, while they have certain privileges, this doesn't make them more qualified to make subject/content decisions, and if I'm not mistaken, they can't stop someone from beginning a new conference or RfC simply because legitimate considerations have emerged, like the election. Much of America and the world will now be reading this biography, where they'll also look at Clinton's bio and see a pleasing pose. But when they compare it the Trump biography they will see the exact opposite with some people rationalizing that the picture is 'okay', which will tell them that Wikipedia is just another biased political rag. We need a new post election RfC. Making everyone wait months for a better picture is unfair. I move that a new post-election RfC be initiated. If no one seconds this motion, then I'll wipe the egg off my face and wait for the official picture to arrive, someday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC) One more comment pointing out your flawed reasoning and/or ignorance, and then I'm done with you. which will tell them that Wikipedia is just another biased political rag. Yes, much of the public is constantly seeing bias at Wikipedia. That will always be true. They understand WP:NPOV even less than the huge number of Wikipedia editors who misunderstand it (which includes you, apparently). So what? We edit Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy, not to avoid external criticism. Best of luck with your plans for continued disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC) OK, Gwillhickers, you've made your motion for a new RFC. The appropriate action now would be to stop arguing and wait to see if you get any support for the idea. Fair enough? MelanieN alt (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC) P. S. Just to make it clear: I function at this article as just another editor. I do not take any admin actions here because I am WP:INVOLVED. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN alt and MelanieN: One of us is missing something here. There is already an active RfC about infobox image, at Talk:Donald Trump#Trump Photo 2 Rfc. What "new RfC" are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC) I didn't realize that one was still active. Apparently neither did Gwillhickers with their call here for a new RFC. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Gwillhickers has been advised of the existing RfC multiple times throughout this multi-thread dispute. They were well aware of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC) As an admin, you are a relative expert on many things including Wikipedia process. I'm going to assume that you don't forget all that when you login as your alt. I did call it "admin input", not "admin ruling". I don't expect your comments to be binding, only informative. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC) You understand that; I just wanted to make sure Gwillhickers does. You called attention to my admin status. I didn't want them to think I was trying to give any kind of orders or throw my weight around. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC) I think a reasonable editor with 55K edits, acting in good faith, would read your comments and reluctantly concede. I know I would in their place, I don't believe I know more about Wikipedia process than a widely respected admin. Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC ... ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN: I didn't try to make anything of you being an administrator, as Mandruss attempted to do. (No? why was it brought up?) No one is forced to participate in these discussions and I don't appreciate being harassed by the same lone editor (not you) who has resorted to personal attacks several times now. Many readers have expressed legitimate concerns, since the election, on the Talk page. Should we ignore them? RfC's are for editors. Very few, if any, readers ever participate there. The Talk page is where concerned readers air their concerns, and they should be counted in the consensus process when they take the time to chime in. Should we ignore them because of an outdated RfC that occurred before it was known that Trump was our next president? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: This article peaked at 6 million views a day, an exceptional surge for any article in Wikipedia's history. In that context, some readers don't like the picture and they should not be ignored. However we cannot guess how many readers would have complained about another picture, had it been changed to one of the suggestions. Each proposed picture was deemed unfathomable by enough people that none gathered enough support over the current one. Obviously WP:CCC applies, you are free to suggest a change and see if the community would support it now. Alas, this is ultimately an WP:ILIKEIT / WP:JDLI debate, as was noted repeatedly in long-winded discussions about the most suitable portrait. The only event that might change the status quo is the issue of an official photograph by the Trump campaign (that didn't happen) or by the White House (that will happen soon enough). — JFG talk 05:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC) @JFG: My whole point is that that discussion belongs in the active RfC, not in separate unstructured threads. But we can't do that because Gwillhickers refuses to go there and discuss it, instead insisting on taking the issue out of that process and starting one thread after another to demand that his mini-consensus replace the existing hard-fought RfC consensus. Please, let's observe process first, then discuss content. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC) @Mandruss: The readers should be our top priority. They are the only reason why we are here. When the readers compare the Clinton and Trump pages they're going to wonder what's going on around here. Brushing it off as "external criticism" is a slap in the face to the readership. There is no policy, proceedual or otherwise, that says consensus can't be reestablished when circumstances warrant it, as they have, on the Talk page. I will consider initiating a post election RfC. In the mean time all editors need to limit their discussions to article improvement, (a Talk page policy I'm sure you're not ignorant about) and not get their feathers ruffled when someone doesn't accept their opinion as gospel. If something comes up on a Talk page someone doesn't like, no one is forcing them to participate, so kindly not carry on like you're emotionally disabled, 'disrupted', and are being dragged through this against your will. If concerns come up on the TALK page, then they naturally are addressed on the TALK page. Your efforts have only attempted to disrupt this legitimate process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Re the claim: "Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC." Okay, can we see the policy that expresses this idea exactly? Is there a time limit? Two years from now will we still be required to use the RfC to establish consensus? If that's truly the case then I'll forget about trying to resolve the matter here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC) We seem to be entering a new era of nastiness. We are all volunteers. Can we try to be polite? Objective3000 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Gwillhickers, I am totally baffled what your point is in this thread. You are demanding a new post-election RFC. There IS such an RFC currently active on this page. As you already know, and as Mandruss has reminded you. You already have what you are asking for. So why are you still asking for it ? MelanieN alt (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: My understanding is that the subject himself does not find the photograph objectionable. Moreover, it comports with the take-home message in his acceptance speech: He is actively listening to other peoples' voices. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Please note that there is a guideline advising against using bullets in a thread that was started without bullets, or vice versa. Switching the method makes formatting for good readability unnecessarily difficult. Two years from now will we still be required to use the RfC to establish consensus? - After we have an official photo for Trump, are we going to consider a different official photo while he's in office? Why on earth would we do that? Because the first official photo is a WP:NPOV violation? As for after he leaves office, with the possible exception of Lyndon Johnson - File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_Oval_Office_Portrait.tif - the bio of every former U.S. president after Franklin Roosevelt shows an official government photo in the infobox. Why would there be a need to revisit the photo then? For that matter, I wouldn't see a problem with a Donald Trump photo RfC every four years, and there is no way we would need anywhere near that much. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN: The RfC above has been closed. There is a discussion above, which is where the consensus I referred to is located, but this is not an RfC. RfC's are usually on their own page. Anyway, I said I would consider an RfC, per your statement that it would take another RfC to override the old one, but the idea of post election considerations seem to be routinely ignored by a couple of editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC) @Dervorguilla: The existing picture of Trump may have been taken from footage during a debate, and viewing it in that context is quite different than viewing the single image photo used in a WP article, esp when compared to the favorable pose of Clinton. Again, the existing photo is out of context, misleading and disparaging in that regard. Where are you getting the idea that Trump "does not find the photograph objectionable". I sort of doubt he'd approve of using this out of context image in his biography. Many people already find the image, uh, less than acceptable, esp when compared to other biographies showing formal/smiling poses, as the Clinton bio does. Not a fair and balanced presentation for the readers, who should be our primary concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC) The RfC above has been closed. That RfC above has been closed, but it had nothing to do with the infobox image and therefore nothing to do with this dispute. The applicable open RfC, which I identified and linked above at 17:58, 15 November 2016 for MelanieN since she was new to this dispute, is at Talk:Donald Trump#Trump Photo 2 Rfc. RfC's are usually on their own page - Incorrect, per the first sentence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Ultimately, while you have some support as to content, you remain all alone as to process regarding this issue. That's basically the test for the widely-accepted essay WP:STICK. If you remain a minority of 1 after a couple of days of very active discussion, you review WP:How to lose and move on—even if you are absolutely certain that your debate opponents are wrong. That's the only practical way this business can work, and this is another thing that I feel you should already understand at your experience level. In this case, "move on" means go participate in the decision-making process already started in that RfC. If your preferred image is not on the table there, I don't see a problem with adding it yourself, especially with so few !votes already stated there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC) New Post election consensus (cont) @Mandruss:, more so than anyone, by far, you're all over the map around here and need to stop reassuring yourself by speaking for other editors. As you're well aware, many editors/readers have expressed a desire to change the existing photo since the election and are not fixated on your narrow take of process, such that it was, before the election. i.e.Not carved in stone for all time. Since the 2nd RfC is stuck in the middle of this (very) long talk page, many, like myself who have arrived later and/or haven't sifted through the entire page, no doubt will overlook this RfC, which, btw, only has two similar photos to chose from, which even I find less than adequate. Once again your concern for the readership seems to have taken a back seat to your apparent blind allegiance for that pre-election RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: "Where are you getting the idea that Trump 'does not find the photograph objectionable'." A truly authoritative source for that information would most likely have communicated it only in confidence, but you can take my word for it. "Many people already find the image ... less than acceptable ... when compared to other biographies showing formal/smiling poses, as the Clinton bio does." Yes, but Clinton's an acknowledged loser. Roosevelt's an (historic) winner and he apparently would not have felt a need to smile for his Wikipedia photo. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Dervorguilla: Be that it may, that's not going to cut it in an open date where editors are expected to at least make an attempt to support highly questionable claims such as you've made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC) stuck in the middle of this (very) long talk page Not a problem, we can move it to the bottom if that's an issue for you. only has two similar photos to chose from, which even I find less than adequate. I just suggested you add your preferred image, and that's far from the first time you have failed to hear what I said. Are you intentionally doing this or just uninterested in real discussion and communication here? Anyway, as Melanie has indicated, this question of Wikipedia process is not a matter for debate and consensus, so it matters not how many other editors feel it should be circumvented. I don't care if you have somehow evaded standard process your entire Wikipedia career (you appeared to know little or nothing about RfCs, stating that they usually have their own page), that doesn't make that legitimate. Need I list the things you have gotten objectively wrong in these threads? I really don't think you're in a position to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about here. I reiterate, you are a minority of 1 as to process, and nothing you can say here will ever change that fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

New York City, New York, U.S.

I wonder why we would need this degree of specificity in the birthplace field. Are there a lot of other New York Cities in the world forcing us to disambiguate like this? So far as I am aware there are not, so New York City, U.S. would seem adequate. --John (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I guess there are a few isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea who don't know that New York City is in the state of New York, but they don't have Internet access. Wait ... they don't speak English, either. We don't need superfluous data, especially in infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Absolutely do not need that level of disambiguation. If the article itself doesn't need disambiguation (New York City in this case), the infobox doesn't either. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What should be in the infobox and what should not? Which form?

• New York City/New York

• Jamaica

• Richmond Hill

• Queens

• NY/New York etc. (the state)

• United States/U.S./US etc.

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• New York City, U.S. and I consider the U.S. part a compromise. We don't need superfluous data, especially in infoboxes. Suggestion at Template:Infobox person#Parameters notwithstanding; I call WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss's argument is even more persuasive now, given the addition of 'Residence: Trump Tower, New York'. The Infobox person template would prescribe 'Birth place: New York, New York, U.S.', which has been (understandably) rejected, so we're left with the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline ("exclude any unnecessary content"), which can be interpreted to prescribe 'New York City'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If I were smart enough to untangle this mess, I'd volunteer to close discussions. An RfC to decide the value of a birthplace field? Moggles the bind. My suggestion to move this to a resolution: Just agree with me. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• New York City, New York, U.S. per the site of death of Alexander Hamilton and many other articles with the same standard, just different cities. We should keep consistency in this case. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • See the discussion just above. We don't need to clutter up the infobox of any article with information that is purely redundant. --John (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Queens, New York, U.S. - just looks like long-form is the norm in List of people from New York City, and commonly hyperlinked Borough, sometimes hyperlinked State, unlinked U.S. (e.g. Alan Alda New York City, New York, U.S.; Christina Aguilera Staten Island, New York, U.S.; and Woody Allen The Bronx, New York, U.S.; Joseph Barbera Manhattan, New York City, U.S.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Queens, New York, U.S. - makes sense to me both as someone that lives in NYC and has lived elsewhere. Objective3000 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Queens, New York City - most informative while short and unambiguous. United States are implied. — JFG ^talk 00:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• New York City, U.S. Queen's is a borough of New York City which is far better known than the borough or the state. TFD (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

*New York City, New York, U.S., per Template:Infobox person ('Place of birth: city, [state], country'); Queens (borough, not a city); and ZIP Code Lookup, USPS: "8515 Wareham Pl, Jamaica NY 11432". OK with New York, New York, U.S. for brevity. (Note: Jamaica is formally a neighborhood in the "City of New York".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction: 85-15 Wareham Place (then Road) was his house. Trump was born in a hospital (89-00 Van Wyck Expressway (then Boulevard) Richmond Hill, NY 11418). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Cool! Can you add that information to the article body? (Something like '...was born in Richmond Hill, Queens...') --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla:: I believe he was born in Richmond Hill but it seems very hard to find a source. Factcheck.org says he was born in Jamaica Hospital in Queens [29], Jamaica Hospital very helpfully says the name was almost changed cause they moved just over the line to Richmond Hill and it's still their home. Case closed? No. Somewhere in that mountain of text it seems to say that most of the webpage is just copied from this history of Jamaica Hospital 1892-1942. A maddening mere 4 years before Trump was born. I doubt any buildings on the Jamaica side of Van Wyck Blvd were built during the War and Trump was born only 10 months after the War so that's a pretty short time to build a building for Trump to be born in. If part of the hospital was in Jamaica in 1942 I think they would've mentioned that. To this day only mental health is in Jamaica. That building didn't even exist till the 50s. Here's a photo of a bus on a bus buff website which says it's probably first few months of 1948 and shows Jamaica Hospital. It's the only photo I can find of Trump's birth hospital from that era. The visible part of Jamaica near the hospital is empty fields. And aerial photos from 1951 (click "map type" to see) shows what looks like plenty of empty land touching it so why build a maternity ward across the boulevard that you might even know or suspect would become a superhighway soon? Our article agrees with the hospital that Richmond Hill ends at the road in the photo and the post offices now serving each side of Van Wyck are named Richmond Hill and Jamaica. But Richmond Hill is still too WP:SYNTHy to put in right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• • See the discussion just above. We don't need to clutter up the infobox of any article with information that is purely redundant. --John (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Just not U.S. - utterly unnecessary to disambiguate that much. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• New York, New York, U.S., per Template:Infobox person ('Place of birth: city, [state], country'). Its formal name is "The City of New York", not "New York City". (Illustration: "Columbia University in the City of New York", not "...in New York City"). The short form for "City of New York" in legal citations (a close analogy) is "New York", not "New York City". This is the infobox for our next head of state; let's help educate our readers as to the formal nomenclature. And how can we forget the well-known film title: "New York, New York" (not "New York City, New York")? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)04:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• New York City. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline ("exclude any unnecessary content") and comment by Mandruss, above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• New York, New York, U.S.. I was born in Manhattan in the very early 1970's. My birth certificate does not distinguish which borough of the city I was born in. And it's an official document. This is a no-brainer. Doc talk 07:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  A no-brainer if official names are the primary goal here. Does anybody find it strange that there is no community consensus on that after 15 years? I fail to see the cost/benefit argument for forcing us to debate this at every article. Just sayin', carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  There's only one borough that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. "The Forgotten Borough". Doc talk 07:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Not sure how that relates to my comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  I tend to get "obtuse'. New York, New York. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Doc talk 07:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  The "obtuse" thing is obviously from Shawshank. The other is from Colin Quinn when he did Weekend Update. "I'm Colin Quinn. That's my story and I'm sticking to it." Doc talk 08:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  Memes on memes? Is that a "supermeme" or something? :) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Official names are not the primary goal here. Wikipedia is not a branch of the USPS but an online encclopedia. In general, and especially in infoboxes where space is at a premium, we keep things as brief as possible to unambiguously carry the meaning. If there were many different New York Cities in the world of similar status, I could see the point in disambiguating this to the one in New York State. As we live in a universe where this is not the case, we do not need to do this. It is indeed a no-brainer. --John (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A wise comment indeed, but which short version do you advocate? New York City, U.S.A.? New York, U.S.? Queens, New York? (pointing to state) Queens, New York City? — JFG ^talk 21:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! As I said at 19:13, 14 November 2016 in the section just above, I think "New York City, U.S." unambiguously and economically describes the location. (Incidentally, we almost never use USA.) --John (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, "New York City" is listed neither on birth certificates nor mailing addresses. It's City/County/State. It's somewhat unusual to have a major city named after the state as well, like Oklahoma City. Kansas City is even split between two states. But then it gets even further complicated with the "borough" system. Manhattan is in the city of New York, the county of New York, and the state of New York. Queens is in the same city and state, but the county is Queens. It's more complicated than I first thought it was. Doc talk 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the opposing view, which I support, is more like a COMMONNAME argument, and "New York City" is quite commonly recognized. As I said above, there is no guideline support for either view, and I think there should be. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think the consensus is clear that "New York, U.S." is the best way to adequately describe the subject's birthplace economically. Thanks to all who took part. --John (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@John: I'd actually changed my vote from 'New York, New York' to 'New York City', but I didn't put my amended comment at the bottom of the list, so I can see why you overlooked it. My error. I'm now changing it again, to New York City, U.S. (which is how the infobox currently reads). --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@John and Dervorguilla: Several editors mentioned that "U.S." is superfluous. If we want to be minimalist, shouldn't we keep just New York City? — JFG ^talk 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I indicated that I included U.S. only because I felt that might make it easier to reach a discernible consensus. Just generally speaking, give-and-take is a Good Thing in Wikipedia editing. The picture seems different at this point in the process, so I'm shifting my position toward no-U.S. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy either way ("New York City" or "New York City, U.S."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As it is right now, it says "New York City, U.S." Why are we shortcutting on the state? It looks weird, is highly irregular; and actually "dumbing it down" for no good reason. Just because a major city ends in "City" does not obviate the need to list what state it's in. It really should just be "New York, New York". City, state. Country is optional. Doc talk 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the title of New York City is dumbed down for no good reason. Clearly the community feels there is a good reason to omit the state in that title. Actually I think the default position should be to match the target article title for all cities worldwide, obviously with the provision for exception cases reached by consensus. We can debate whether to say Queens, Richmond Hill, etc, but I don't think there should be much disagreement about omitting New York and U.S. from New York City. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — JFG ^talk 12:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have disruptively made that edit.[30] ―Mandruss ☎ 15:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Request of editing this page

His successor for being a President-elect of the United States is not Barack Obama. Please remove that as soon as possible.--1233^Talk 07:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It will be changed to "Preceded by" Obama once he is inaugurated. As it is now, he is "Succeeding" Obama, meaning he is set to take his place. Doc talk 07:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

References to President-elect Trump in hip hop.

Aside from the lone Mac Miller song reference in the article, there are a tremendous number of references to President-elect Trump in hip hop music dating back to the 1980s.

This YouTube video features references by Ice-T, Ice Cube, A Tribe Called Quest, Redman, UGK, Master P, Ol' Dirty Bastard, Raekwon, House of Pain, Kid Rock, Rappin' 4-Tay, Westside Connection, Coolio, E-40, Pete Rock, Nas, Nelly, Cypress Hill, 50 Cent, Ludacris, Busta Rhymes, Blackstreet, Chingy, Lil' Wayne, The Notorious BIG, The High & Mighty, Young Jeezy, Sean Paul, Sean Combs, Yung Joc, Jedi Mind Tricks, Rick Ross, AZ, Juvenile, Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West, Ja-Bar, D/R Period, Big Sean, Raz Fresco, Meek Mill, T.I., Lil' Kim, Juicy J, Young Thug, Lil Durk, Shaquille O'Neal, Gucci Mane, Riff Raff, Omen, Gangrene, Tory Lanez, Rae Sremmurd, Young Buck and Eminem.

Nearly three decades of relevance in popular music seems more than worthy of inclusion. As it is locked, I can't do it myself, but if anyone with editing privileges feels so inclined, it would be a great improvement to the article. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Finally a suggestion which is not about Trump's portrait or some campaign controversy, how refreshing! Thanks for that Justanothereditor98027. If you could find some written source(s) besides the Youtube mashup, I'd be happy to draft a couple sentences for the Popular culture section. — JFG ^talk 09:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget the excellent Pimps (Freestylin' at the Fortune 500) by The Coup. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the main written source I could find. It doesn't mention nearly all of the songs linked in the YouTube video, but it should be sufficient for a start. Thanks JFG. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 11:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There was also a song about Donald Trump featured on the in-game radio in Saints Row IV.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

the date listed 2006 as the last time the republicans held both congress and the presidency is wrong the correct date appears in the footnote

100.40.173.160 (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a complete and specific description of the change you want to make. Example: Change "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogs" to "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy cats", along with why. Then you can reactivate this request. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to clarify this... --Bod (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Protests

Please see Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Protests regarding Reactions to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald's hair and other physical appearances (again)

The Merkel-Raute, another body politics trademark, is noteable as well

The last time this was discussed, it was made very clear that detailing sections for people's physical appearance, such as their hair, hands, breasts or ears, is a serious violation of BLP. Some people even got banned for making fun of Donald's appearance and one user even got their adminship removed. Yet again I see someone added another section for Donald's hair and even added a degrading picture of him where sweat drips from his face. Imagine if someone made a section of Obama's ears, lips or feet in his article with a picture to follow it up? Or likewise on Hillary's article, making fun of any of her body parts? I think we need to take body shaming very seriously, even if we don't like Trump and like to talk about his body. Beatitudinem (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So far this sort of section has been based on press clippings - similar as the whole portion on his political stance. That say, try a google scholar search on "Donald Trump", hair - you will be surprised to find about 4000 entries and a German thesis called We Shall Overcomb. An Analysis of Donald Trump Hair Memes (Verena Born, 2016). No kidding, the topic as such is noteable and warrants an separate article. That said, de:Body Politics (not Body politic, but the role of politician's and rulers bodies) is an important topic as well for the Trump election and perception, but one should finally start to base such an entry or section on academic sourcing, less on Huffpost and Slate googelites. Polentarion Talk 06:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's still not worthy for an encyclopedia that takes itself somewhat serious to include this in an article about a US President. If he never ran for president, I wouldn't mind as much. But this is just bad taste/indecorous. Beatitudinem (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone created an article, "Donald Trump's hair". Last month, it was put up for deletion and the result was that the content was merged here. There was no consensus for the material to be purged completely. I think it's too soon to debate the issue again.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be in the article, but, if we are allowed a moment of levity, it certainly would seem to be "just desserts."

http://www.americanhairloss.org/general/about_us.asp http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-alicia-machado-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate-rosie-odonnell-fatness-weight-fat-shaming-amy-farrell/501827/ Activist (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"Donald Trump Hair Memes" could be based on scholarly sources and is for sure noteable. Why confine gender and body studies to Dolezal, Merkel and Butler ;) ? Polentarion Talk 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Role of hair comb and photo on this talk page

As far as I can see, the longest discussions here have been about the photo, not about any detail in text. That said, physical appearance, including hair comb is much more important than any content. The hair style is part of that. The point is, one should start to use the real studies about such topics, not the Huffington posts. Body politics is clearly important for the Donald. Polentarion Talk 06:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Polentarion: Says right there in the lead graf: "He is heir..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Used to say it, anyway. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: The recent Der Spiegel title page use an "hairbomb". We shall overcomb! End of the world as we know it. Polentarion Talk 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

There is a mistake many times in here. I will edit it once. JOEYGEORGE123 (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Not clear what change is requested. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

KKK celebration

I don't have it right in front of me, but I have seen news articles saying the Ku Klux Klan plans a victory celebration. Right now it hasn't happened so I guess it's too early to put that anywhere, but it seems relevant since one of the reasons people opposed Trump was KKK support.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is of course silly. It's like opposing Clinton simply because many of her supporters are flag burners, street rabble and other sorts. There will always be fringe groups who favor any political figure. Bear in mind that we live in a media-oriented society, with many people who grew up in front of a TV set and still continue to watch hours of television, every day, sitting there in a passive state with their mouth hung open, staring at the bright light while all the garbage fills their mental background (psyche). And of course politicians and activists know the angrier you make people, the less you have to explain yourself and have a litany of trigger words to effect this. Crowd control 101. The sad part is, without TV many people wouldn't know what to do with themselves during the evening. No doubt the media ran with this idea of KKK support over and again, but we shouldn't mention it here, anymore than we should say that many flag burners supported Clinton in her bio'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Slovene

please change ((Slovene)) to ((Slovenia|Slovene)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:8838:e047:4607:de0d (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2016‎ (UTC)

 Done — Andy W. (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Name taken off buildings

It may not be this article, but I feel this needs to go somewhere on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd apply WP:DUE, as to this article or any other, and you haven't mentioned any other coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Coverage has been heavy and the name has already been removed from one building. But, it does seem a bit trivial for a long article -- unless there is a trend. Objective3000 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO irrelevant and UNDUE for this article. Maybe a mention at The Trump Organization? --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I did it at Riverside South, Manhattan, where it would be pretty obvious.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It does have a brief mention at [[Protests against Donald Trump. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New RfC

To any and all newcomers and others who may have missed it, many objections regarding the existing photo have surfaced since the election and a new RfC (conference) has been started above regarding the replacement of the existing photo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature change

Hello. I recently updated Trump's signature to File:Donald J. Trump signature.svg do to the signature listed at his website and the pledge h sogned.Should the current one be used that is outdated or the newer, updated one? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Existing and proposed, in that order:

―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I'm open to reading opposing arguments, but I don't see any reason not to use the most recent. I like the seismograph effect of the proposed signature, as Trump is nothing if not earth-shaking. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – The previous image is more readable and less "in-your-face" bold (notwithstanding the signer's boldness). Full disclosure: I reverted the OP's use of the new file in various places earlier today. — JFG ^talk 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  A guy's signature is his signature, readable or not. And it appears that the one currently used is his former signature, at least as far as any evidence presented so far. Your reverts are routine BRD and are not a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me that there is no "old" and "new" signature, just two separate executions of it by Trump's hand, the former one being clearer, hence preferred. — JFG ^talk 04:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see a distinct difference beyond the difference in pen/width of lines. My dad's signature was a work of art that was almost identical every time for some 50 years; mine seems to change from day to day depending on my mood and mental state. No doubt some signatures are stable in the shorter term but do evolve over time. We have no idea which group Mr. Trump is in, so we have no way to really make decisions like this without a larger sample size with known dates for each. I still prefer the new one, but in the end I think this is a strong candidate for editor overthink so I'm easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose That is unreadable, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't sign with a felt tip marker. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A signature does not need to be readable for someone to use it. Have you ever seen a doctor's signature or even Bobby Jindal's? You can't read them a majority of the time. Bobby's isn't readable, but yet we still use it... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The old signature is much more clear. PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose first one better. ---Bod (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC) ~
• Oppose for accessibility. The old sig clearly indicates that the subject signs his name "Donald J Trump", not "Donald Trump". Readers can use this information to determine that any document signed "Donald Trump" must be treated as forged. But the new sig can't be transliterated at all (try it). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If the second one is in fact his current signature, then we should find one that isn't so bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordeKyle (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose nobody can read that. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we at last change the infobox image ?

Superseded by active RfC. Please take any content discussion to that RfC. There is nothing to discuss as to process. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion in this secton, as proposed by John Cline, ZiaLater et al. IMHO, we should definitely not wait for Trump's official portrait. The current image makes wikipedia look ridiculous, and you don't have to like Trump to think that. Even Hitler's infobox picture looks better ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC) There is an active RfC to decide those questions, at Talk:Donald Trump#Trump Photo 2 Rfc. Please participate. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Duh. I hadn't seen that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC) You're not the only one, as it is buried in the middle of a sea of talk, with a TOC a mile long. No one editor's fault. I agree, the Trump biography has not received the same treatment as Clinton's which reflects unfavorably on Wikipedia and the idea of unbiased writing. I mentioned that many readers, (our top priority hopefully) will compare the current Trump image with that of Clinton's and make the same obvious deduction you and many others have made. No one can argue that Trump is not smiling, as is Clinton -- nor can they argue that the image is not formal in appearance, as is Clinton's. All bio's should receive the same considerations, esp when controversial subjects are involved, yet we will have to wait months before that happens, even with adequate images available. Hopefully the other supporters will weigh in soon so we can present an article in a truly neutral manner.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Just to note the reason Clinton's image is the way it is: that is her official portrait as Secretary of State. Most biographies of office holders use an official portrait like that. Trump has never held office so we don't have that option. Presumably that will be rectified soon. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Which doesn't change the fact that the two biographies have not been treated in a fair and balanced manner. Clinton's image is pleasing and formal in appearance -- Trump's is not, even with several such images available. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Just noticed that the sections (not RfC's} filled with support for a new photo have been tucked away in numerous collapsible boxes by one editor who took it upon himself to do so -- the same one whose name appears all over the page more than any other, by a huge margin. Very revealing. It appears we have POV and ownership issues at work here. The current RfC only "supersedes" the old RfC, it is not a license to suppress opposing opinions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC) The same editor just tried to do the same thing with this current discussion. Will someone please talk sense to this individual? He is apparently too angry to listen to me anymore. Discussion about the Trump image is not confined to the current RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Discussion about the Trump image is not confined to the current RfC. Strongly disagree. Anything "decided" outside the RfC with respect to the infobox image could not override the RfC result, so would be a pointless waste of editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Does the 1RR apply to this talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Speaking as an uninvolved editor, please keep the image discussions in one place, in this case the ongoing RfC. I have seen plenty of people agreeing that the current image is not ideal, but none agreeing on a new one. In order to agree on a new image these people are going to have to agree to one image in one place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Zzuuzz: Please review the sections involved. Most of these sections have been tucked away in green collapsible boxes so they are easier to find now. Many editors have expressed a desire for a new image, including the editor that initiated this section. The new RfC is where we will determine any new consensus. There is no process (or any) policy however that says every discussion about the image must occur there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC) The more the discussion is diluted the longer it will take. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Well, I had a similar concern, that people on both sides of the POV fence would line up and vote accordingly, resulting in a long debate, which indeed has occurred. This is why I hoped that policy would prevail (not that anyone has out-right violated policy) and both bio's would simply get a pleasing and formal picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC) The constant violation of WP:AGF on this page has become quite tiresome. My opinion, and that of many here, is that the alternative images of Trump are all poor. The ones in the new group are squinty and make him look constipated. The claim that we are purposely trying to keep un unflattering image due to political beliefs is outrageous and without any merit. Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Superseded by active RfC. Please take any content discussion to that RfC. There is nothing to discuss as to process. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Mandruss:, please read what is written. This is a current discussion about something other than consensus or process. No one said this discussion will override anything. No policy has been violated. If so, please give us a quote to the exact policy -- not a general link/referral to some page, but the exact policy, please. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: Ok, I read what was written. I see you comparing smiling Hillary to serious Donald, as if that "inconsistency" is precluded by Wikipedia neutrality policy. It is not. I think I see you saying that the issue is too urgent to wait for an RfC resolution, so we must resolve it more quickly outside the RfC. I strongly dispute that. You seem to have trouble with the concept of subjectivity, trouble accepting that there are good faith differences in perception of the existing image. This was elaborated at length during the last push to change the image. You appear to believe that your view of the image is self-evident, and you in fact suggested the other day that failing to agree with your view was evidence of bad faith. It is not, and I would call that the ultimate bulletproof debate argument, "Agree with me or you are acting in bad faith". If there is something I'm missing in this thread that makes my collapse inappropriate, please point it out to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC) All 'perceptions' aside, Clinton's image gives us a smiling and formal pose, Trump's does not. Re: Urgency, I wouldn't say that, but the fact remains, several months will pass where many thousands of viewers, every day, will see a glaring difference in the bio' images. and wonder about Wikipedia's credibility, as has been expressed by several editors. Okay, let's try to bury the hatchet and let the current RfC run its course. At least most are willing to use the official photo when it becomes available. Trying to count the blessings here. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: Clinton's image gives us a smiling and formal pose, Trump's does not Again, and for about the 4th time, Wikipedia policy does not require that kind of "consistency". Can you see why you are seen as "not hearing" what is said? If you hear what is said, you either dispute it with evidence, or you accept it and change your position accordingly. You did neither, simply repeating the same thing you said before my comment. The concept is the subject of the essay WP:IDHT. And you failed to hear my comment yesterday or the day before that we edit according to policy, not according to what readers will believe about our credibility or neutrality. At the risk of glibness, Wikipedia is not engaged in a popularity contest. We are a non-profit encyclopedia, not a newspaper with the need to consider profitabililty. Again, you neither countered my statement (I don't think you even responded to it, actually) nor accepted it and altered your position. Again, IDHT. This pattern is what is so frustrating with you and other editors who behave in that manner. It is simply impossible to communicate with you in a constructive way and affter several days one wonders why they are wasting their time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Oh my goodness, you're still fuming. Given your rather frantic participation, suppression of opposing opinions, disregard for fair treatment and neutrality, even when numerous editors point out the obvious difference in the photos, disregard for policy regarding ownership, Talk, repeated personal attacks, etc, not to mention your habit of speaking for others, your recital about what Wikipedia is and isn't has become something of a blur. IDHT? Look who's talking. I heard very well, and when it comes to policy about "process" you never took the ball past your own ten yard line. Once again, the RfC is about establishing consensus. Discussion about the neutrality of images however can occur where it may, and there is no policy about "process" that says editors can't express such opinions while an RfC is occurring. Is there? Your attempts to suppress these discussions, which no one is forcing you to participate in, obviously says more than you care to admit. As I said, we'll let the RfC run it's course. Now have your "last word" and repeat yourself for the nice folks out there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Would someone please stop these constant personal attacks? Objective3000 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC) My understanding and experience is that no admin will act without a complaint at WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, possibly somewhere in the Arbcom infrastructure where ArbCom restrictions are in place, I'm not very familiar with that area. Discretionary sanctions are available at this article but I've yet to see them exercised for talk-page-only misbehavior. So, sadly, I believe the answer to your question is "probably not". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC) I was willing to bury the hatchet, and let the RfC run it's course, and look at the reply. Again, I'm willing to let the RfC run it's course. Evidently this was not good enough for Mandruss, who initiated and has made repeated personal attacks. I'm done with this thread. Mandruss? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you for letting the RfC run its course. Thanks again for being done with this thread. If you want to have a general discussion about infobox images and neutrality, the venue is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, not this page. In theory, at least, some editors who are especially familiar with WP:NPOV watch that page and offer comments. While that does not always happen, it at least gets the discussion off this talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First sentence order of titles

In the first sentence, it makes sense to change to order of titles and speak first on the fact that he is the president elect. This outshdow all other information, and the main reason people enter this page. I would suggest something along that line:

Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, the President-elect of the United States, an American businessman, reality television personality and real estate mogul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.184.222 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree we can cross that bridge when we get to it, not a moment too soon. --Bod (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • He already won the race, and is the president elect. What do you mean "... when we get to it ..."? This is exactly where we're at. 128.237.184.222 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • As a biography of a living person, most of his life has been as a business man and celebrity. People may come here cuz of recent events but it would be NPOV in my mind to classify this man first and foremost as a politician. --Bod (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC) ~~
      • What Bod said. He may one day be better known as a president. That day is not today... Distrait cognizance (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
        • At this current time point, even if Mr. Trump suffers an heart attack tomorrow, and never make to the white house, he will for generations to come be remembered as the president elect, years after he is forgotten as the owner of Trump towers. As much as he deserves an article as a business man and reality TV he is not extraordinary due to that. He has become extraordinary by winning the race to the white house. Let me ask it this way - If you were to write this page from scratch, what would be the most important thing you could say about Mr. Trump? 128.237.184.222 (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
          • You're being blinded by current events, my man. All in due time. All in due time... He is still a wannabe politician to many. He has never even held office and you are ready to call him an "American politician" --Bod (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Bod's observation is correct -- in part. Most mainstream sources say that Trump is not truly a "wannabe politician" -- at least, he didn't wannabe elected as much Clinton or Cruz did. (And judging from his biography page, when Trump sleeps, he dreams of building golf courses, not campaigning.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Producer or personality?

Trump is a television producer:

"Donald J. Trump is the co-owner and Executive Producer of the 'Miss Universe Pageant'..."

"Mr. Trump is producing additional network and cable television programming via his Los Angeles based production company..."

He's also a television and radio personality:

"His radio program with Clear Channel Radio ... was a wonderful success."

He's not, in that context, a "reality television personality". Sources: Trump Productions; Donald Trump Biography. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say he is both. He was the subject of a reality TV show, which makes him a reality TV personality.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Correct, he's both. Next question: Which lead sentence conflicts with WP:BEGIN-

A. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television producer, radio and reality television personality, real estate mogul and President-elect of the United States.

B. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television producer, and President-elect of the United States.

Hint: Which version introduces the subject, and which tries to describe five or six notable things about him? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: right, I don't disagree with you, but I think he is more commonly notable for being a reality tv personality than a producer. I for one, had no idea he produced anything, yet as a person who really doesn't know anything about this guy, I do know he was on reality tv shows. I think if you are only able to make one mention of his tv work, then the reality tv personality is better to use. I also think that maybe using the term, "Television Personality" is more accurate that reality tv personality, because he was on a lot of non reality shows like Oprah and such in the past as well.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to add, being a TV producer is really just a business venture of an American Businessman right?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC){{reply to|}

@MordeKyle: No. A TV producer isn't an owner or proprietor; he's labor. Organized labor. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Heir to the Trump fortune"

This was recently added to the lead. Per the article body, "After his father died in 1999, Trump and his siblings received equal portions of his father's estate valued at $250–300 million." So when he got his share, it was a small portion of his total wealth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's how I edited this just now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Suggestion: Remove 'formerly run by his father, which is now...', per MOS:INTRO (avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions). Also, the business was named "Elizabeth Trump & Son" when Fred was running it. Some readers could erroneously understand the text to mean that at some point in time, Fred ran a business called "The Trump Organization". --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. The next paragraph of the lead gets more specific: "he took control of his father Fred Trump's real estate and construction firm".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's 60-75 million $. Worthy of the lede? Maybe not. But I think what it did is let it be known that Donald was not the builder of the family fortune. It should be written in the lede that his father and grandfather built up the family fortune and Donald continued in the same business as his father. --Bod (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bodhi Peace: Forbes "gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey... 5: Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune: Donald Trump". ("The New Forbes 400 Self-Made Score: From Silver Spooners To Bootstrappers".)

Had his score been 1, 2, 3, or even 4, the information would clearly be leadworthy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the entire base upon which his current fortune stands. Sure it has been expanded, but the fact remains we don't know how much it is now—and the inheritance was very substantial. Some sources even say it makes up most of Trump's fortune once you correct for inflation and the increase in NYSE valuation, and that had he only invested in the stock market he would have been richer than he is now. Regardless it belongs in the lede as something central to Donald Trump, especially considering his controversial comments about "small loans". I just can't see how this is problematic? As for that score it seems difficult to get a proper source for that when his fortune is so difficult to pin down, and to base editorial decisions on it seems bordering on WP:OR. Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevant sources:

• http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
• http://time.com/money/4005271/donald-trump-index-funds-wealth/
• http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund
• https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/54699/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing (original source)
• more…

This "material" probably isn't lede worthy. Also, it is now mentioned twice in the lede that he took over his dad's company, that should probably be addressed or corrected or not. --Malerooster (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have combined the two lede paragraphs about his career into a single paragraph. It does not mention inheritance or "family fortune," just says that he took over the family business and expanded it. I trust this meets with people's approval, but if not let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Feminine speaking style

I found this interesting. Trump's idiolect purportedly uses vocabulary correlated more closely with female speakers than with male ones, and this might explain some of the emotional resonance in his speeches. There's a critical response here. I haven't been able to find an academic reference so far, but the same author did something similar about Hillary Clinton ([31], search for Jennifer Jones) in 2015. It includes a mention of the text analysis program and corpus used in the study. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to put any of this in the article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

None of this will go into the article. Doc talk 09:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that is quite interesting. FWIW, voice artist Peter Serafinowicz has made dozens of videos highlighting Trump's highly camp style of delivery. Here's an example. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Found the paper about the Clinton study mentioned above: doi:10.1017/S1537592716001092 (WaPo) 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

:Oppose. Per WP:DUE, if you need a policy argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC) (Stricken after introduction of more RS and per Dervorguilla below. I don't like it, I don't think it has any place in a self-respecting encyclopedia, but I no longer have a policy argument against it. I can't support it as Dervorguilla has, but I will abstain and withdraw.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there really a need to continue this thread? I mean, there's no chance this is getting in, for more than one reason. The proposer (Yes, I know who you are) should know better than to bring this crap here. Waste of time. Doc talk 11:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll collapse it per WP:BOLD, which is obviously subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's far from "crap", Doc. Trump's idiolect is fascinating, albeit hard to summarise in a few sentences, there's almost enough material out there for a standalone article. Besides Jennifer Jones' study:

"The Idiolect of Donald Trump" by Jennifer Sclafani (Prof. of Linguistics at Georgetown) which was picked up by dozens of news outlets

"A Readability Analysis of Campaign Speeches from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign" by Elliot Schumacher and Maxine Eskenazi of LTI, picked up by the Independent and many others

"We Uncovered the Hidden Patterns in Clinton and Trump's Most Common Phrases" in Atlas Obscura with contribs from Dr. Viviana Cortes (Prof. of Applied Linguistics at Georgia State), Paul Baker (Prof. of Linguistics at Lancaster) and others

"95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue" with contribs from Matt Motyl (Prof. Political Psychology at Illinois), Dr Jennifer Mercieca (Prof of lots of stuff inc. Presidential Rhetoric) and others

"Understanding Trump’s Use Of Language" by George Lakoff (UC Berkeley Prof. of Linguistics)

"Why Elites Lose at Trump’s Language Game" Foreign Policy

"The Way Trump Talks in Debates Is Contagious" in WIRED by Chelsea Coe

etc, etc, etc... --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree the information is interesting, maybe even fascinating, but I don't see any place for it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, with Doc, et al. I'm not into gender denial, but 'opinions' about Trump's speaking manner are highly subjective, even those of 'linguists' who perhaps can't think outside of their particular academic box, and don't belong in an objective biography. There is little to nothing about Trump's speech that jumps out and says he speaks like a women, but that's my opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the thing should be in the article either (maybe it should be in some other article) but I don't think Wikipedia articles are supposed to be "objective". They're supposed to be neutral, which is different. A neutral article summarizes sourced viewpoints about the subject, including subjective viewpoints, according to due weight (which is itself somewhat subjective). 50.0.136.56(talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Add per WP:DUE. @Hillbillyholiday: I'm going to presume that you've checked those articles' discussion sections and that they don't cite many reputable sources that contradict this claim. For now, at least, you can treat it as a majority view. Relevant and important data. Many thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion. Whether it's truly "crap" crap or not, it has no place in this article. And this discussion thread is a waste of time. But please! Continue! Doc talk 07:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hillbillyholiday: Lunsford teaches that "a writer who attempts to persuade by asserting or assuming that a particular position is the only one conceivably acceptable within a community is trying to enforce dogmatism... People who speak or write dogmatically imply that there are no arguments to be made: the truth is self-evident to those who know better".

Nonetheless, WP:DUE requires that you add no more than (let's say) two sentences; and WP:CON requires that you ultimately accept a compromise of, most likely, one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Enforce dogmatism? I'm not sure I even recommended introducing any of this material into the article, just said it was interesting. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case your comment was a (minor) WP:NOTFORUM violation, not being about improvement of the article, and it was seen by at least one editor (me) as support for the content. You might have explicitly identified it as an admitted FORUM digression. Just sayin', no huge harm done. At this point, then, I don't see enough consensus for inclusion of anything. I see the OP strongly in favor, Doc strongly opposed, Gwillhickers opposed, Melanie somewhat opposed, and Dervorguilla somewhat tepidly supporting a little bit of content. Regardless of the WP:DUE argument, that is not a consensus to include. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-correct. The OP is NOT strongly in favor, per I'll leave it to others to decide whether to put any of this in the article. - At this point, then, we have virtually nothing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You can tally me as more than "somewhat" opposed. IMO we should not include it. It isn't enough for information to be referenced; it also has to have received enough significant coverage to be worthy of inclusion. And for a BLP I think we should avoid all long-distance evaluations of a person by some professional who has never met them. (We could fill up the whole article with would-be psychoanalysis of Trump.) BTW did you read the article in question? It lists key indicators of "feminine speech" as using short words and talking about yourself a lot. I don't know what kind of "research" that is based on, but many people would find it very offensive. (I guess I should say: "I am a girl and this is not the way I talk so I don't want it in my Wiki." Almost managed to keep it to words of one syllable, but "Wikipedia" defeated me.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL. The article actually said that? And somebody brings that here and presents it as RS? This is becoming comical. Hell I find that offensive and I'm not exactly a white-knight feminist. Are we ready to pull the plug on this discussion? I tried to do that yesterday with Doc's support, and that was reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Don't close it down yet. I want folks to see what I said." (There, nailed it!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Good work, that is an "average grade level" of 1.0 according to Readability Score. Sounds about right. See Spot run. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hemingway wrote like that too, Mandruss! I try to, too. That's the way most of us speak; we should write like we speak. :) OK to close now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your 10:12 comment scores grade level 15.5. Ok, much of that was a Lunsford quote. Your 03:40 comment scores grade level 9.7. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't president elect be the first thing about Donald Trump in the wikipedia article?

At this point of time, he is the president elect. Other qualities of him such as American businessman, reality television personality, real estate mogul are secondary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.47.184 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this makes some sense. I did not change the lede sentence, but I positioned the information about his election and pending assumption of office as the second paragraph of the lede, leaving his business activities as the third paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "President-elect" should come first. It -- pardon the pun -- trumps everything else. Maybe it can be worded as follows? "Donald John Trump is the president-elect of the United States. He is a businessman, real estate mogul, and former reality television personality." Scaleshombre (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The opening sentence almost writes itself, if you look at the four model openings given in MOS:OPENPARA,

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand ... was a French statesman, who served as President of France from 1981 until 1995.

Cleopatra VII Philopator ... was a queen of ancient Egypt.

Cesar Estrada Chavez ... was an American labor leader and civil rights activist who ... co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.

Francesco Petrarca ... was an Italian scholar, poet, and humanist, who is credited with having given the Renaissance its name and inventing the concept of the Dark Ages.

the opening sentence in the article most directly comparable to Trump's,

Michael Richard Pence ... is an American politician and the Vice President-elect of the United States.

and Trump's own biography pages,

Donald J. Trump … is the archetypal businessman...

Donald J. Trump is ... continually setting the standards of excellence for real estate, sports and entertainment... The Trump signature is synonymous with the most prestigious addresses in the world.

You're probably going to end up with something like,

Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman and the 36th President-elect of the United States.

The second sentence is where you have to get a bit creative. One idea: As the chairman and president of The Trump Organization, he built a global brand in luxury real estate and mass entertainment (or the like). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The current lead reads "Donald John Trump is an American businessman and politician who is the President-elect of the United States." How does "politician" add any useful information to that sentence? Since Trump's the president-elect, that makes it clear that he's involved with America's electoral system -- hence, a politician. If he'd held prior elective office, it would make more sense to put politician in the lead. As it stands now, it's like calling Jamie Dimon "a banker and the CEO of JPMorgan Chase." Banker is implied by the JPMorgan affiliation. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done – Removed "politician" and unsightly "is … who is" construction. — JFG ^talk 17:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My changes to the lede

I made some organizational changes to the lede, although I didn't add or delete anything. The information about his election as president was formerly scattered among three paragraphs; I combined it into a single paragraph and put it right after the lede sentence. The information about his birth, education and career was scattered between two paragraphs; I combined them into one. Comments/suggestions/corrections are welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW to avoid the recurrent arguments about whether he was really "elected" on November 8 or won't be until the Electoral College meets, I said he was "selected" in the general election to become the next president. Does that sound OK? --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it sounds like a strange construct to me. I'd leave it at something like "he won the general election on November 8th..." (personally, I'd also include "without winning the popular vote" or "despite not winning a majority of votes" but YMMV). Rest of the changes are good. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I like that wording better and have changed it. There has been controversy on talk pages about whether to mention the popular vote in the lede; it is already present in the body of the article. I think I will clarify the "won" sentence to say something like "by getting more electoral college votes than Clinton". I'm not so sure about mentioning the popular vote in the lede since it might confuse people who are not familiar with our unusual process for electing presidents - or might require more explanation than is appropriate for the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd just say "elected" and leave the EV/PV thing to lower in the article. EV may be a historical artifact but it's what campaigns work to win (thus the intense effort in swing states). There's been increased argument since the election to get rid of the EC (including a constitutional amendment bill introduced by Barbara Boxer iirc) and that should also be mentioned. But it's all relatively technical and doesn't belong in the lede. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

real estate mogul in the first sentence is redundant

Real estate mogul is a subset of businessman. Real estate mogul implies businessman. Businessman does not imply real estate mogul. Real estate mogul should not be in the lead.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of making another section on this, please add your opinion to one of the above sections that are covering this exact same subject. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Must pay 1 million dollar penalty in fraud case

Trump must pay a 1 million dollar penalty "for violating New York education law for running an unlicensed university" in the Trump "University" fraud case. This is definitely lead material (when it's covered appropriately in the body).[32] --Tataral (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not lede material, the lede is meant to be a brief summary of the article, not a laundry list of negatives. Your bare assertion that it is lede material is not an argument. Athenean (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A president(-elect) fined for fraud is clearly lead material. Just compare Bill Clinton where trivial controversies (by comparison) are included in the lead. Or Hillary Clinton where a trivial controversy over her emails which resulted in no charges (not a 1-million penalty for fraud) is included in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Again the bare assertion. Actually the Lewinsky scandal was pretty major (it lead to Clinton being impeached), as was the email scandal (it sank Clinton's presidency). Come to think of it, none of HC's other scandals are mentioned in the lede (benghazi, cattle futures, whitewater). The fact that you consider the e-mail scandal "trivial" is also quite revealing. Not even remotely comparable. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you consider a 1 million dollar fraud judgement against the US president elect not worthy of inclusion in the lead is also quite revealing. Of course it should be there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not really lede material and definitely not on the scale of the other "scandals" mentioned. Should it be noted in the article? Maybe. If there is an article on this university, it should definitely be included there. Honestly, this seems quite trivial.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably a sentence in Trump University section. But should really be in the Trump University article. Not the lead of this one. PackMecEng (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng. Brief mention in the Trump U section of this article (not in lede), more detailed treatment in the dedicated Trump U article, maybe in lede there. The settlement (a voluntary agreement) should not be described as a judgment (a decision imposed by a court). Of course when someone makes a big settlement payout they normally expect they would lose at an actual trial, but in this case, who knows. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That link in the original post doesn't say anything about a fraud judgment. It says settlement, a voluntary agreement to throw some money at a case in order to make it go away. Trump might just think he'll be too busy with the president thing to deal with defending the lawsuit, so he decided to write a check instead. It would be reasonable to include some sourced analysis about the case's merits in a section about the case, but the likely outcome is not something we can infer for ourselves in the article. Fwiw, I read somewhere that the value of Trump's business empire went up by ~$14 billion as a result of the election. That might be worth mentioning if there's a good source (I don't remember where I saw it). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, picking out the $1 million and trying to get this in the lede appears to be cherry picking. First, the article discusses $25 million for settling the cases in New York and California. Then it says Trump agreed to pay "up to a $1 million penalty." This means he could end up paying anything from $1 to $1 million. Also, there might be different forms the penalty could take equivalent to a dollar amount. I agree, not in the lede here and the facts need to be sorted out. The initial proposed content is oversimplified. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

He "settled" for $25million (something he said he'd never do as recently as 3/1/16 (or 1/3/16, I'm unsure what date format was used)), not €1 million. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This was not a "judgment", it was a settlement, and one of the terms of the settlement agreement is that Trump does not admit to any wrongdoing. The breakdown of the $25 million is described at Trump University#Settlement. In this article the settlement deserves, and has, a sentence in the "Trump University" section; it does not belong in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The $25million was a settlement with his victims in the fraud case. The 1 million however was a penalty for violating the law. --Tataral (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That article doesn't say that Trump must pay a $1M penalty, it says he agreed to pay it. Those are not the same thing. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed this "material" from the lede per the non-consensus above. --Malerooster (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Should Trump's Chairmanship of The Trump Organization be listed on his infocard the way "President-elect of the United States" is?

Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I also want to add that since Trump's position in the Trump Organization is listed under "previous service" in the list of US presidents article, I think it would be appropriate to add it in the infocard as well. An example would be "President of the Screen Actors Guild" in Ronald Reagan's infocard, despite it not exactly being an elected government office. The same idea could be applied here as well to make the infocard more informative. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. This should be added to the infobox. Edge3 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

According to Business career of Donald Trump, it seems that his leadership of the Trump Organization began in 1971. Edge3 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I did some further research to verify the date. (1971) I've added it now. Great suggestion! Just a reminder that you could have added it yourself also. ;-) Edge3 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I actually added it myself yesterday, but it was removed and I was told to come here to discuss whether or not adding that would be appropriate. I think it is, so I'm hoping I can get more people to agree on it so that this addition sticks. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we should also list Fred Trump as Donald's predecessor? The company was renamed when Donald took over in 1971. Edge3 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01 and Edge3: Warning: "Donald Trump is calling Template:Infobox officeholder with more than one value for the "term_end" parameter." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01 and Edge3: (1) Take the material to your user pages. (2) Read Template:Infobox officeholder. (3) Edit the material accordingly. (4) Bring it here for discussion. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but perhaps I misunderstood your prior comment. Is there still a technical error with the way the template has been coded? Edge3 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01 and Edge3: "The same idea could be applied here as well to make the infocard more informative." True in general. If you add data to a system -- any data -- the total information in the system increases. Question: Does its entropy S increase or decrease?

Answer: The data you're adding here cause the system's disorganization to increase even faster. So its entropy increases.

You can cause S to decrease if you (1) remove that random information and (2) add only information that fit within the personal data template. In particular, don't expand the term "office" to include any nongovernmental position. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Well then I'm curious as to why some presidents of non-governmental organizations use the officeholder template. Some examples being the articles of President Thomas Bach of the IOC and Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation, both NGOs. Private universities also use that template, such as Woodrow Wilson as President of Princeton University, as well as Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of Columbia University. I'm not really experienced in editing Wikipedia, so is there some rule or standard that I'm not aware off? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01: The first rule would be to not start off your Wikipedia career by radically changing the Donald Trump infobox based on a selection of non-analogous articles rather than on the relevant template instructions. Beyond that I can't help you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: For the record, both Bokmanrocks01 and I have several years of editing experience at Wikipedia, so we are hardly starting off our WP careers. I also don't think we should feel constrained by the artificial limitations of the officeholder infobox template... Donald Trump will be the first US President without prior government or military experience, so even our WP templates and guidelines wouldn't provide clear guidance on what to do. If he is notable for his leadership over the Trump Organization then we should reflect that in his article. Edge3 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Edge3: "Bokmanrocks01 and I have several years of editing experience at Wikipedia, so we are hardly starting off our WP careers." Bokmanrocks01 has made just 251 mainspace edits in his career. Also, it doesn't appear that he's found out how to override the default option for editing the lead yet. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI Vaze50 did a revert. I didn't find any comments or edit summary to discuss, however. Edge3 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is too much detail while providing little information. There are few people who know what the Trump Organization is but have never heard of Trump. TFD (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

But the same can be said of Barack Obama, for example. There are few people who knows of the office of President of the United States but don't know who Obama is. The point of adding Trump's chairmanship to the infobox is because his business career as chairman of The Trump Organization dominated his public life before becoming president-elect, so at a glance, adding it to the infobox will build a more complete picture. Just my thought on it. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

More people knew about the U.S. presidency before Obama reached the office, and it will continue to be better known that Obama himself after he leaves office. It is probably the only elected office in the world where any person elected is so well known. And Obama is so well known because he is president, not vice versa. TFD (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the presidency made Obama famous. However, the same could also be said about Donald Trump because he took over Elizabeth Trump and Son (aka Trump Organization) in 1971 instead of his siblings. Being chairman of his father's company allowed him to pursue the business career that made him well known later on. How much do you hear about Trump's siblings, who were not as involved in the company? It can be argued that The Trump Organization made Donald Trump famous, not vice versa. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No one ever heard of the Trump organization until they heard about Donald Trump. OTOH most people had heard about the presidency of the U.S. before they ever heard of Obama, or Trump for that matter. TFD (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bokmanrocks01: You got it backwards: Donald Trump's personality and self-promoting style made The Trump Organization famous; you'd never have heard of that firm otherwise. How many real estate developers can you cite from memory, even those who build New York skyscrapers? — JFG ^talk 02:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

State of the article

This is not about Trump, but a famous 1831 caricature of Louis Philippe turning into a pear. (Honoré Daumier, after Charles Philipon, who was jailed for the original.) The same approach has been used on Helmut Kohl. I assume the underlying principles and body politics research could and should be used for the public view of Trump

Some points which should be dealt with:

• A search for donald+trump%22+politics+doi on scholar provides about 2000 entries of actual studies. None of them went into the article.
• The current references (about 600) are mostly online press commentaries stuck together ad libitum.
• None of them has a doi.
• An attempt to introduce Slavoj Žižek's comment on Trump got deleted quickly.
• There is nothing about Trump's books
• There is nothing on books about Trump.
• The article lacks a something like a must read literature list.
• The article mentions the Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump respectively the authorities control entries but doesn't cite anything out of it. OK, one of Gwenda Brail's biographical books has been quoted once.
• That said, this article has been stuck together at random with online press clippings. It has no backing at all in scholarly sources.

It seems that non of the authors has ever read a book, from or about Trump. Will say, the most-read WP entry is being put together on lowest level possible, and doesn't even use one of several thousand serious studies, not even one. And bookwise its nearly as worse.

You couldn't write a freshman's essay based on that level.

I ask to tag the article on quality till the problems have been solved and ticked. Polentarion Talk 11:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The article (like all WP articles) is a work in progress and it's had a few GA nominations that were unsuccessful, so I think everyone understands that it needs further development, which is under way. So I don't see a need to put in any tags. I agree that your points listed above would be good things to address, except maybe the one about Slavoj Žižek (who I'd never heard of and who doesn't seem that important). It's an excellent list and I appreciate your having researched and posted it. Trump of course became a drastically more important public figure after the election than he was before, so there will probably be more spin-out articles as more sources appear, and those can hold stuff that don't rate packing into the main article. Heck, there's probably enough sources already to write a dedicated article entirely about Trump's hair. ;-) 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@50.0.136.56: You wrote, "The article (like all WP articles) is a work in progress...". Given the article's impact on Trump's life, that idea doesn't apply here. "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives..." WP:BLPSTYLE.

You wrote, "Slavoj Žižek (... doesn't seem that important)". Search RT. 18 search results from December 7, 2015 to November 16, 2016. Latest: "Prominent Slovenian philosopher Slavoi Zizek explains why he thinks Donald Trump's presidency 'will trigger...'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

dear IP, I have been a little bit sardonic ;) But already before the election, one could have written an article about Trump based on books and studies, instead of press clippings. That hasn't happened ever since. The whole series of Haircomb conflicts on this talk page could have been solved by confining any hair content to be based on university studies about the topic. Which do exist! Žižek is a turbo prof in London, New York and Lubljana university, the sort of guy the Concorde had been built for. That said, a) the article has a large leeway for improvement and b) I get sorta sarcastic if guys fight other authors instead of looking for real sources.Polentarion Talk 22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and studies in the arena of a living person tend to be problematic in the arena of WP:NPOV. The books 'written by him' were not written by him, and are clearly not NPOV. The books not written by him are generally not NPOV. This isn't a history or science article. WP looks to reliable sources. The Žižek source you keep bringing up may very well be accurate, but is highly opinionated. The concept that we should look at "scholarly" articles on a recent subject doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. You look for such articles in areas of science and history, not recent events. When Kissinger asked Mao, what are the lessons of the French Revolution, the supposed answer was: “it was far too early to tell”. Let's stick to what reliable sources report. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: You don't appear to understand the policy you're citing. See NPOV § Bias in sources. "A common argument is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. This bias-in-sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute it as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone."

In other words, the editor who excludes a source for being "highly opinionated" could be trying to make his own POV seem neutral.

See also WP:BIASED. "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased... Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

@Polentarion: It looks like you may be good to go. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: - I said nothing along those lines. The reason we use, what is being called, "press clippings," is that the respected press is the most reliable source of information on recent events. As interesting as they may be, I see problems with inclusion of the opinions of a psychoanalytic philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I would like to start with the first academic author commenting on Trump being involved here. Please explain the policy that makes Huffingtonpost interns more noteable than Žižek. Polentarion Talk 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a "Huffingtonpost intern" should be used as a source. Do you know that an "intern" was used as a source here? I don't think the opinions of psychoanalysts belong in articles about living office holders in general. Objective3000 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a sort of discrimination due to professional background. Sorry but Zizek is famous, influential and his statements on Trump are being quoted globally. He is just a cultural critic with three professorships, one of them at the university of New York. Polentarion Talk 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000:: And my point is that "WP ignores reliable sources" - we look for easy going press clippings and we do not care for the overall picture. That said, science nowadays is sorta quicker - we have more than 2000 studies with a doi about Trump, so no excuse to ignore them. One example: The biggest part of this talk page is about Trumpian body politics (Semiotic and symbolic importance of physical details of a politician, leader or royality, including e.g. hair style). Books and studies covering aspects of similar cases in the past could be very useful to solve talk page conflicts in a BLP case. I already referred to the German "we shall overcomb" piece on the Trump hair memes. I assume that those studies would help to put our conflicts in an overall scholalrly perspective and help to reduce or solve them. Polentarion Talk 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The idea that this article (much less the presence or absence of Slavoj Žižek's endorsement in it) has any effect on Trump's life makes me smile. I think Trump is safe from us no matter what we do. I only skimmed the article but it looks ok to me. I do agree that most of your sugestions would improve it, and by all means you should feel free to FIXIT. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

and @Dervorguilla: To boldly go where none went before? I cannot do that on my own. We as wikipedians need to change the way we work on such pieces. I wrote a short note on my userpage, maybe that could be converted into an essay of general interest. But I don't care about Trump,. I care about the readers. Polentarion Talk 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you really believe every article on Wikipedia is created by people who've read books on it? That's never how Wikipedia has functioned in reality. User1937 (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, - No. But I doubt a project trying to collect global knowledge on a certain subject will succeed if it describes it based on mere press clippings. We currently ignore several hundred books and thousands of recent scientific studies dealing with different aspects of Trump. Polentarion Talk 11:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of the tags

As I was being deemed "free to go", I added tags to the article. General cleanup is needed and real sources should be added. List of items see above. Polentarion Talk 10:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016

Please link to his mother's article Mary Anne MacLeod thanks ScotKreek (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ScotKreek (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 12:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Is there edit filter about users to not change the future president to 45th president until 2017 ?
178.42.216.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, and for various reasons it would not be entirely practical. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Then you could add code witch replaces "president elect" to "45th president" on 1/20/2017.
178.42.216.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sr.?

I may be wrong here, but shouldn't "Sr." be added to his name in the lead, as he has a son with the same name (like with Barack Obama and Barack Obama Sr.)? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 13:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There is Donald Trump Jr. Donald Trump Sr. is redirect. Compare: Barack Obama Jr. is also redirect.
178.42.216.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:JR, others may differ, but this isn't something I've ever seen him called. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 13:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Change his position on gay marriage to "Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled" http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/index.html. Currently there is an old statement, from when Trump was battling it out with Ted Cruz, and trying to keep the evangelical vote.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Change his birth place to Queens, New York City, U.S., be more specific. 219.79.97.97 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Under discussion at #His birthplace. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote figures

Our Trump biography gives the electoral vote figures but none for the popular vote. Don't know if this is 'the' best source available, but the popular vote figures can be found here (and elsewhere). Since this was such a controversial issue we should include these figures also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not such a controversial issue, really. Obama and Hillary Clinton have both acknowledged that Trump is the president-elect. There's really not going to be a last-minute appeal based on popular vote numbers or swaying/abolishing the electoral college. This article really doesn't need to state the exact number of popular votes cast (are they even finalized?). Doc talk 10:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a controversial issue? There's no question that Trump won, but (e.g.) Boxer wants to introduce a bill to end the electoral vote because of this issue, for openers. We should inform the readers of just 'how much' Clinton garnered the P.V. so they're not left wondering and speculating after they've read our article. From what I've seen, the figures are finalized. If not, okay, we should of course wait until they are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Boxer's bill is going nowhere. There are plenty of other articles where readers can get the exact "P.V." figures, no? Is it somehow being suppressed by not having it here? Doc talk 10:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know the bill is ridiculous, but it still reflects the magnitude of the controversy. And no, we wouldn't be 'suppressing' it from the world, this is only one article, buy since many people are wondering, why not include these numbers? Is there a definitive reason not to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is a definitive reason not to. One click on the "Main article: United States presidential election, 2016" link shows the popular vote numbers right there in the infobox. It does not need to be repeated here, as it would be redundant. Doc talk 11:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That article also has the electoral vote figures, so by your reasoning, we should not include them here.(?) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. There's many articles concerning the election, and inundating this bio with election figures is not necessary. Doc talk 11:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

'Inundate' means to overwhelm. Mentioning a couple of figures doesn't come close to this idea. Many articles and sub articles have a contextual overlap of information, within reason of course. Nothing wrong with that. Are you saying we should strike the electoral vote figures? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not going to get into a debate with you here. You asked the question, and I'll let others chime in now. Doc talk 11:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the age-old question, how tangential is too tangential? The logic that "if we're covering x, why shouldn't we cover the connected issue y?", ultimately takes us to coverage of something like declining birth rates in Madagascar lemurs, so I try to avoid it. In my view, the popular vote issue, if any, is too tangential for a biography of Donald Trump. I'm with Doc. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation: They are biased Though but they are biased and viewable scores they are because he has a lot of scores and because he talks about mainly trump and how he got his money . If he was being biased then it would be bad because he would be giving only one opinion on one person and leaving out the other people which will not inform the people about what the other candidates did bad. If there not biased which they are not then that means they give a little information and not there own opinion about ever candidate for example only talking positive about Donald trump would be biased but talking about trumps negatives and positives and talking about Hilary’s negatives and positives is not biased.
Each fact is appropriate and referenced appropriately. but not reliable reference most of them are news references which they provide false information to the public most of the time. Here are some options that this person can take in order to have more scientific articles in his paper for factual information I know because they are not scientific scores meaning a peered reviewed journal, a book, and others news articles are merely just like face book post they put information on the news to entertain the public some of the news is true but a lot isn’t. http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2062/ehost/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=52cae105-2649-4f05-9ce9 bdcb788057fe%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4214&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zc2Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=119442523&db=ufh or http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2062/ehost/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=52cae105-2649-4f05-9ce9-bdcb788057fe%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4214&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zc2Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=119442524&db=ufh.
Everything in the article is also relevant to the topic with nothing to distract me so that is good and not missing . This is good because the person needs to stick to the topic so the reader can make sense of what there reading in the article. The trump plaza is a little over represented in this article I would cut back a little bit on it and there is nothing under represented. And There is no information out of date because this is a current event of 2016. The only thing that can be added is a little more information on how he is president now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Castonguay (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

'Popular vote' is mentioned twice in the article, but including a couple of figures somehow transforms the idea into something tangential -- in the General election section? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's pertinent information and quite notable - winning the presidency but losing the popular vote doesn't happen often. Of course this should be included in the lede, per coverage in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, we should mention the popular vote figures, but not in the lede -- in the General election section. Is that what you meant? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to omit from the lede. It's like literally five words, not even a sentence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the historical significance, mentioning the popular vote in the lede also is perhaps okay, but not the figures. Not even the electoral figures are there -- but we should at least include the popular vote figures in the General election section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

We absolutely do need to report the popular vote issue, both in the lede (in general terms, not numbers) and in the General Election section. After all it is historically significantly - it's only the fifth (or fourth depending who is reporting it) time in U.S. history that this has happened. But we should not try to report exact figures because they are changing daily and will continue to do so. It's currently 1.3 million plus. My personal preference is to use a generic number like "more than a million" until we get final results. Here's what the Hillary Clinton article says in its election section: "A week after the election, the popular vote count showed her leading by more than a million votes, with many votes yet to be counted." I propose doing something like that here (modified so it is about him instead of her). --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Just keep in mind that the margin by which she won the popular vote was greater by which both Kennedy and Nixon won their respective elections.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for covering the popular vote in the General Election section. But it really has no place in the lede. It's literally a footnote in the life of the article's subject. That should be the ultimate test for what gets in the lede of a biography. The fact that he won, of course, is a life-changing event (and one that impacts the entire world). But the minutiae of how he won (electoral college vs popular vote) doesn't belong in the lede. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As we have a General election section, dedicated to Trump's election, we need to mention anything distinctive, historically or otherwise, about that election -- esp since the popular vote issue has taken on notable proportions. If the final numbers are not available then we'll just have to wait (unlike what they've done in the ' Election 2016 article.) In the mean time, yes, we should make a generic reference, in the section, and mention "more than a million". This way any biased reader that comes to the page won't assume the margin is respectively more or less than it is in reality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to mention either the electoral vote figure or the popular vote figure in this article. Those figures and other details are covered in the 2016 election page. This article only has to say Trump won the election. That's it. There is no need to even mention either the electoral vote or the popular vote in this article. If we cherry pick what details to put in this article and what details not to put, then it just becomes too chaotic. Some people might argue to include the fact that Trump won most of the states. Some people might argue to include the fact that Trump won just about all the counties. Some people might argue to include the fact that Hillary won just about all the major cities. Just my two cents. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, we have a section dedicated to the General election and adding the election results would be among the top choices of what to include there. Covering the historically notable and controversial popular vote would only involve adding a sentence, if we really must curb such information. (Note: One of the distinctions of a well written article is that it offers depth of knowledge on important issues, regardless if an item happens to be mentioned somewhere else, so we should aim high from the start.) Once again, many articles and sub-articles have a small amount of informational overlap, which is good, as it ties the narratives of these articles together. And deciding (or "cherry picking" if you prefer) what goes into an article is standard operating procedure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Trump, not Hillary. If Hillary won the popular vote, that belongs in the lede of Hillary Clinton. Here, the only thing that matters is that Trump won, nothing more. No need to qualify it. Athenean (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this article is about Donald Trump, not Hillary. So rather than writing "Hillary won the popular vote" we write "Donald Trump lost the popular vote". That should do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Except, as everyone knows, the popular vote is meaningless. Always was, still is. Only the Electoral College matters. The popular vote is not even mentioned in the US constitution. Athenean (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump university

Any legitimate reason, other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT why any mention of Trump University keeps getting removed from the lede? Especially right now, because Trump settled the lawsuits (after promising to never settle), it's all over the news and there is a ton of sources. [33] [34] [35] and ton more.

Obviously that a president-elect ran an organization which was sued for fraud and settled the case is notable. I believe this is a first time that something like this has happened. There's no justification from omitting Trump Univ from the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. He licensed his name to dubious guys running this venture, and that was a liability in his presidential campaign. Now he closed the case. How big is this story compared to Trump's whole life? I say not big enough for the lead of his bio. — JFG ^talk 18:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with JFG. I also note none of Hillary's scandals appear in the lede of the her article (cattle futures, whitewater,benghazi, etc...). Athenean (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because there was no legal cases involved and it was just media/Republican created "controversy"? Did Hillary settle any fraud cases? No? Then that's probably why it's not in the lede there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If Hillary Clinton had had to settle fraud cases, the US "republicans" would go berserk and it would totally dominate the lead section of her biography and the article. --Tataral (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is notable that Trump is a scamster, but unfortunately RSs have not given this story the coverage it deserves. For instance, here is the NYTimes front page from yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2016/11/19/todayspaper/index.html As you can see, they didn't even give it top headline billing on the story's biggest day. The section on TrumpU in the article body is of roughly the same size as the one on his golf courses. So, per WP:GREATWRONGS, it shouldn't be in the lead without more coverage. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the others here that it should not be in the lede. He has had a very active and sometimes controversial business life, and this isn't the first (or the second, or the third) time that he has paid a fine or settled a claim for serious allegations. They are referenced in the article text, and detailed in full elsewhere (Trump University, Donald J. Trump Foundation, etc.). And there's a bunch of other important stuff that isn't in the lede, for example being the first candidate in decades to not release his tax returns, or the number of times he has declared bankruptcy. Basically the Reliable Sources which determine our coverage have given him a pass on many matters that would normally have been lede-worthy. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the main topics in the entire article. Any topic that is given its own section should at least get a brief mention in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Its in the sub-section of Business career so not really its own top section. Also there are about 54 sections including subs on this article, that would be a lot to put in the lead. Finally going to agree with MelanieN and basically everything they said. PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning '54' items in the lede is nothing fantastic. Anything that has its own section, or subsection, should get at least a few words in the lede. Sometimes it's possible to mention several things in the course of one sentence. Not going to press this one, but a review of the sections in terms of representation in the lede wouldn't hurt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead should certainly be revised. It doesn't have enough information about his business ventures. And there is a lot of unnecessary material which could be removed to make way for new information. For example, the lead describes him winning the primaries. Well, of course, if he is President he won the primaries. Also, the description of his early life and education seems unnecessarily detailed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Image way too large and given too much weight

In the General election section, the image of the protestors is considerably larger than all other images in the article, save one, even those of Trump. Do we really need the image at all? There seems to be an WP:UNDUE issue here, and quite possibly a POV issue. The image needs to be either removed or made the same size as most of the other images. As it is, this image is about twice the size as the image of Trump making his victory speech. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I moved both of those pictures to the side and thumb sized them. It would be nice to crop the Obama-Trump picture, so we could see more of the central personages; anybody up for that? --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for managing the image sizes. To avoid that stacking appearance I rearranged them a bit. -- I checked the source for the photo of Obama and Trump and it's not the best quality. Yes, the image does need cropping, but when I tried to crop the image it came out rather small. When I tried to enlarge the cropped image it came out looking sort of fuzzy, so I enhanced the focus. Hope the upgraded image is acceptable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know when the official White House portrait of Trump will be done so we can replace this garbage.

Who ever you are, you can voice your opinion about the current photo here.

Note: The talk page/TOC is very long -- seems like it's time to archive some of the sections that haven't been commented in in 30 days if there are any. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A bot is already archiving threads on a daily basis, after a week of inactivity. See it at work. — JFG ^talk 05:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

clarification of Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote

It should be made clear that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide rather than the popular vote. Election in the US is decided by popular vote in the 50 states + DC rather than by popular vote nationwide as in for example Russia, Syria, Ukraine. In the case of the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide. It is incorrect to state that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote just because she won the popular vote nationwide when in fact Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC. In fact, even in Russia and Ukraine which do use the popular vote nationwide system, a candidate must win a majority AKA more than 50% of the votes nationwide in order to win on the first ballot without a run-off, a threshold Hillary Clinton failed to reach in the 2016 US presidential election. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

US presidential elections are decided by number of electoral college votes, not by "popular vote in the 50 states + DC." Scaleshombre (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Who wins in each of the 50 states + DC is determined by who wins the plurality of popular votes. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's German heritage

It seems a little one-sided to include the fact that "Trump has said that he is proud of his German heritage" etc., but not include the fact that they are not proud of him (Trump's German town is ashamed of him, Die Welt, and many other reactions including from their next President and current foreign minister who called him a hate preacher). --Tataral (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be biased. Who gives you the right to speak for all German people? I'm sure there are many Germans if not the majority of Germans who are proud of Donald Trump. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. Wikipedia is based on what sources report. German and other media have reported extensively on the German negative reaction to Trump, both from the country's elected leaders, from people in Trump's town and in the overall population, and that he is strongly disliked by the vast majority. I don't speak for any Germans since I'm not German, and it wouldn't have been relevant anyway. --Tataral (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)]

The Die Welt source is not a survey. They just went around the town looking for people who hate Trump. Maybe they found a couple of Muslim refugees who said they hate Trump and reported that as their basis for the people of Kallstadt hate Trump. Unless they publish a survey showing full methodology and results, that source should be not used IMO as it would be deemed a propaganda piece. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with IP user 38.121.82.105. Oppose inclusion of this divisive stuff. It sounds like another media hit piece. Does this source actually explain why the "vast majority" of Germans hate Trump? How did they go about establishing the consensus of the "vast majority" of Germans? Or did they conveniently leave that tid-bit out of the equation? Just remember, 'pollsters' who go around asking loaded questions (e.g.have you stopped beating your wife yet?) often cherry pick the results that supports their predetermined opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - an editorial in Die Welt is hardly representative of the views of all Germans, and would not pass notability requirements anyways. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 06:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include. This is a) trivial at best and b) not a scientific or solidly sourced allegation. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - the opinion of Die Welt does not represent the opinion of the German people. Even if it did, which it clearly doesn't, it is not something that rises to the level to be even remotely included in the article.--ML (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose what exactly? This seems most of all like a strawman. I'm not aware of anyone advocating any specific content at this point based solely on an article in Die Welt; rather, it has been pointed out that many sources have described how Trump is highly unpopular in Germany; for example, their designated new President has called him a hate preacher.[36] Surveys in Germany have also shown how unpopular he is there (he would only receive 5% of the votes) and discussed this in the context of his German ancestry which he says he is so proud of[37] --Tataral (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, in that context, since you started the topic (you actually created this discussion topic) then this discussion seems to be an opportunity to bash and complain about Trump. That is a not an appropriate topic for the this particular talk page. The ONLY reason for this talk page is to discuss how to make the Donald Trump talk page better. I stated that that I oppose putting in this particular topic because frankly it is really a far fetched topic. Just to make sure I don't put too delicate point on it: Who really cares about what the opinion writers at Die Welt think or don't think about the President-elect of the U.S.? A: Next to no one. Also since you are the person who started the topic aren't actually proposing to do anything with the information then why is it here? Let's just remove it. I propose that this section be withdrawn by you and if you are unwilling to do that then it should be covered because it shouldn't be here in the first place.--ML (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, who cares that Trump would only get 5% of the vote in Germany? That is daft. It is unbelievably unimportant and strange. He's not running for the Presidency of Germany so that information is only meant to bash and criticize Trump. How about we put in the Hillary Clinton article some daft article written in Indonesia and Hillary Clinton would only get 3% of the votes if she were to run for the Presidency of Indonesia? It is goofy. This whole section seems to be a Coatrack discussion for Tataral to hang negative articles about Trump. I say we hat the whole topic and move on.--ML (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The editor Tataral has edited other articles related to Trump. In the article about Charles Kushner he made the following edit: Changed Charles Kushner philathopist to convicted felon. It was later reverted by another editor. Charles Kushner is the father of Trump's son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump's husband. This topic is a bogus topic. It needs to be hatted.--ML (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Also noted that Charles Kushner is indeed a convicted felon (and a rather spectacular one at that). Please stop trying to discredit Tataral, who is entitled to an opinion different than yours; that doesn't mean that WP:AGF doesn't apply. General Ization ^Talk 21:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Kushner is a convicted felon, so what? That does not mean that this topic is a real topic. He even stated that it is not a real topic. He literally stated that he did not bring up the topic to make a change to the Donald Trump article. He said that. If he did not propose a change to the article then why did he start this topic. You have completely missed the point. This page here is to discuss beneficial changes to the Trump article. It is not here to discuss what percentage of Tasmanians would vote for Trump if he ran for Governor of Tasmania, whether Kushner is a felon or not, or any other irrelevant topic. This discussion topic is a Coatrack discussion for Tataral or others to bring up negative or critical topics about Trump. It is not a real discussion. It is a bogus topic.--ML (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Clinton is not of Indonesian origin, has not said she is proud of being from Indonesia, has not served as Grand Marshal of the Indonesian Parade etc etc. The purpose of this discussion is to point out the one-sidedness of invoking his proudness of his German origins, while not mentioning how he is perceived there. While I haven't proposed a specific new text, I am proposing that we include a sentence or something on how he is perceived in Germany or their reaction to his election, for example the foreign minister and designated president's description of him as a hate preacher, but clearly not based solely on the Die Welt article which was just mentioned as one of many examples. "He literally stated that he did not bring up the topic to make a change to the Donald Trump article" is a blatantly false claim, but typical of your peculiar style of "debate", it seems. --Tataral (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You state that Trump's German town is "ashamed" of him. He does NOT have a so-called "German town". No such thing exists. He is not a resident or citizen of Germany. He was not born there. He was born in Queens in NYC. He is an American. You have not made it clear how you want to change the article. As a matter of fact, your comments in that area are confusing. If there is a change to be made to the article then the sentence should be edited to state that he is proud of his "German-American" heritage.--ML (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, your topic seems to be lead to the proposition that if someone, somewhere on this planet feels negatively about Trump then their opinion needs to be prominently displayed in the article. I say no. If you had an article that stated that only 5% of German-Americans wanted him to be elected to POTUS then I would not find this topic so completely off the charts ridiculous.--ML (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I edited the sentence where I changed "German" to "German-American". Done.--ML (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. If he announces he's running against Merkel, I'd be inclined to revisit the issue.Scaleshombre (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Are we still talking about this? Objective3000 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trimming political positions

The section on political positions is now the longest in this biography, and much of the information is redundant with the main article Political positions of Donald Trump. Globally, the article is still a bit heavy at 79 KB / 13,000 words of readable prose. As the campaign season is over, I would suggest heavily trimming that section, summarizing contents and sending readers to other pages for details. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The section in this article is tiny in comparison to the main article. It provides a good a summary of his positions and contains less content than the Business career section (as it should). Actually, I think the section carries even more weight now as he will soon have the capacity to try and implement some of these ideas. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

False statements

While reading the intro to copy for another purpose, I found this statement to be a bit pov and pointed. Disregarding "controversial", "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false." So we're just going to call the man out as a liar as a statement of fact in the lead? I happen to agree with the statement but I find it true of most politicians. While lacking sourcing, I have little doubt, like about every politician, false statements were made. For a BLP, we tend to give a certain amount of difference for political spin and statements of his opinion. I think "or false" should be removed as inappropriate, but if maintained, I should be qualified, such as adding "or , in some cases, false." Morphh ^(talk) 14:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The current wording is the result of this lengthy RfC [38] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, majority rule "trumps" NPOV - well, Strong Oppose. I don't like him, but that's pretty damn bias, particularly considering the media we rely on as sourcing was outwardly supporting Clinton. I recall Obama getting lie of the year for Obamacare, don't expect I'll see that in his lead. Morphh ^(talk) 16:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're aware that "majority rule" is not the defining characteristic in play during an RfC closure. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but anyone can see it sticks out like a sore thumb as a POV statement in a BLP when placed in Wikipedia's voice. Whatever the arguments of sourcing from WP and Politico, its current phrasing should be a non starter. Anyway, I've said my thoughts. Morphh ^(talk) 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, which means that it was 1) policy based, 2) backed by reliable sources and ALSO had majority support. You act like majority of editors supporting Wikipedia policy is a bad thing or something. Wow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Morphh: See WP:NPOV, § 1 (WP:YESPOV), graf 1 ("Wikipedia aims to describe disputes... NPOV means ... including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."). Have you found a significant number of sources that dispute the point of view about "false" statements? Or that say, "Yes, but..."? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the policy - I helped write some of it. You're not stating a particular example in the lead - it's weasel worded. Many of his statements were false. That type of statement requires qualification, such as "were described as false". Then you're placing the onus on the sources, not in Wikipedia voice. Morphh ^(talk) 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And to part of your question, there are sources where Trump would disagree with that statement or does he not count as an opposing viewpoint? Here is one from today: http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/

Anyway, I don't care enough to get into a debate. I just found it surprising and while agreeing with the statement, I didn't think it should be stated like that. Morphh ^(talk) 01:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Morphh: I was actually supporting your point about "sticking out like a sore thumb". But you don't have to go against consensus by removing the phrase. Just add some language about the opposing POV. There's no consensus against adding, just against removing. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Morphh makes a solid point. Since the article got (even more) massive readership after the election, several uninvolved readers have taken the trouble to comment on the talk page about this particular "sore thumb" wording. I take it as a sign that consensus may have changed and I'd welcome a new RfC about removing those famous two words "or false" from the lead. Strangely, the article body is worded more cautiously than the lead, with attribution to fact-checking organizations, third-party analysis of Trump's hyperbolic style and mention of Trump's rebuttals. — JFG ^talk 03:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. If it's opinion pieces then we need to attribute. If it's news reports we don't. You do realize that whether something is "false" or not is not a matter of opinion, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

We're not denying that Trump lied on the campaign trail. We're questioning whether this is notable enough for inclusion in the lead of his main bio. While it may have been a hot issue during the campaign (and even then the RfC attracted many "Strong oppose" comments), I believe it shouldn't be as prominent now. As Morphh said, Obama got "lie of the year", that's not in his bio, and Clinton was called a liar by none less than the FBI director, that's not in her bio either. And please don't lecture me about WP:OTHERCRAP… — JFG ^talk 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton was called a liar by none less than the FBI director - yeah, that's also false. Please keep in mind that BLP applies to talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? Let me quote your favorite fact-checker on this:[39]

Wallace remarked, "After a long investigation, FBI director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true."
That’s not what Clinton heard Comey say, she responded. […] Clinton appears to have selective hearing. […]
Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified information whatsoever in her email, marked or unmarked. After the FBI investigation, including the interview with Clinton, Comey said she unequivocally did.
We rate her claim Pants on Fire.

Perhaps you suffer from selective memory? Enough said, back to the subject at hand please. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, what you have there is that *Wallace* said that Comey said. Or something. What Comey actually said, as quoted there, which you left out: ""We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

She lied to the public, not to the FBI. Comey confirmed that she did, ergo he called her a liar, on camera, under oath. Sorry you can't admit it. — JFG ^talk 10:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps the whole sentence should be trimmed or rephrased. Instead of:

Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests.

we could just say

Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention as the candidate triggered numerous controversies and protests.

Sounds less weaseling… What do you think? — JFG ^talk 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No. We had an RfC about it. Your proposal flies in the face of the consensus established through that RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That RfC started August 25, almost 3 months ago, an eternity in politics. Need I remind you WP:CCC? — JFG ^talk 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. But here is the thing about false statements. The passage of time does not make them magically true. So there is really little point in revisiting this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are not listening. He lied, that's not in question. Should we point this out in the lead in Wikipedia's voice? That point deserves being re-opened now that the campaign is over. — JFG ^talk 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with JFG. All politicians play fast and loose with the truth, that's a fact. But in no other article is this mentioned in the lede (and especially in such crude non-NPOV fashion). Time to revisit this. Athenean (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So, maybe you should give yourself the task of going around to every single article on every single politician on Wikipedia and add "s/he lied" to it because, you know, "all politicians play fast and loose with the truth". Right. The thing is, that not every politician gets covered in so many sources as stating falsehoods. That hasn't changed. And it hasn't become less notable. It's one of the main characteristics of his campaign (so far...)Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot, DJT is the only politician that "states falsehood". I stand corrected. Not. "The thing is, that not every politician gets covered in so many sources as stating falsehoods." Evidence? Btw, the campaign is over (it's not obvious from your above post). Athenean (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You may sit down. Or not. Wait, weren't you running around right below yelling about "strawman"? As in, nobody here but you claimed that, quote, "DJT is the only politician that states falsehood". Did somebody else say that? Where? Diffs please. No? Why are you pretending otherwise then? And if you want "Evidence" for all the sources then... look. At. The. RfC. We. Already. Held. It's all in there. Which is why this proposal is just an attempt to re-litigate something which has already been decided after exhaustive discussion. And one more time, things don't stop being true just because some time passes. Falsehoods don't magically become true just because some time has passed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That you can think that readers will accept that you're fit to dictate NPOV policy on Trump is laughable. Doc talk 08:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Could fellow editors kindly comment on my proposed text instead of bickering? — JFG ^talk 10:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I think part of this comes down to Trump's over the top style. He exaggerates, embellishes, and talks in absolutes and feelings, which are easily falsifiable. He's also not a trained politician that says something without saying anything. Another part of the challenge is what Volunteer Marek describes - policy reflects the sources and the sources support the viewpoint. However, we're in such a situation where the opposing viewpoint says the media is dishonest and is openly campaigned for their opponent. The reliable sources contain a great deal of systemic bias on this particular issue. From a Trump supporter's pov, it's like saying the reliable sources, helping the Clinton campaign, say he made false statements. Even if untrue, when you have this type of situation, I think we need to treat the underlying data and sources as objective and thus qualify or balance the statement if you include it. Morphh ^(talk) 14:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Splitting article

The article is pretty long (79 kB readable prose size); maybe we should split it? —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a little too early for that as the article is still in its formative stage. The idea of page length is a guideline, not a rigid and unyielding policy. As it says at Wikipedia:Article size at the top of the page, guidelines are ...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Articles about Presidents, among others, often present us with such exceptions and whose length often far exceeds this guideline. For future reference this guideline also says that Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length. Just a note: There are many GA and FA articles that exceed guidelines, and with good reason -- they are well written, offer depth of knowledge and give the readers more than enough, rather than not enough information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump said wall may include some fencing

It was in an NBC interview.--NetworkOP (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's one of his core issues. I'd support adding something about the fence. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to the lead? It's a core issue! Doc talk 08:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Every WP:FART is notable! — JFG ^talk 08:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Trump's iconic comb over hair style has been mentioned frequently by the media." It's got it's own section. That's fantastic. Doc talk 10:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait! We need an article. WP:Refund!! Will somebody think of future historians??? — JFG ^talk 11:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities Fleeing "Trump's America"

Can we have a section on this here. Pretty please? About how all these big-time celebrities swore up and down that they'd leave the country if a hateful, racist, mysogynistic, xenophobic, anti-LGBTQ, horrendous SOB such as Trump were to be actually elected? And then, when it happened, how absolutely not one of them followed through? That each and every one of them not only lied, but tried to influence voters to do the same? Doc talk 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Doc talk 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Support claims of leaving America was a fairly notable angle of the election program. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It's absolutely undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is absurd. There is a ton of coverage about this in the media. Doc talk 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there really isn't, although I guess it depends on what you consider "the media", and even if, this article ain't the place for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You claiming "undue" isn't going to wash. You know this, right? C'mon, man... Doc talk 07:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to say or are you just going to keep typing "lol" as if that was some kind of brilliant insight? It's goofy gossip at best and it has no place in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Goofy gossip? This is why you lost the election. FYI... Doc talk 07:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, ok. Please read WP:TALK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What's undue about it? Doc talk 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How about you try to articulate why it should be included? You know, like with sources and stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're far too biased against Trump to have a NPOV discussion with. It's quite shameful that you've had the influence on this article that you've had. I hope it is diminished now that things have changed... Doc talk 07:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you get topic banned the last time you started up with the personal attacks? Again. Explain why this is so central to Trump's biography that it needs to be mentioned. Stop discussing editors. Discuss content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Shaddap. Doc talk 07:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is your chance to remove your offending comment. Feel free to remove this comment of mine right here (but not others) along with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am offended that you are accusing me of offending you. Doc talk 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) Such a section would not be undue. There is plenty of coverage on the various celebs that said they would leave if Trump got elected [40] [41] [42] [43]. Athenean (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You've pretty much scrapped the barrel there and exhausted every story that was written over the course of a year long plus campaign. Please stop pretending that this was some big story (outside of far right media, neo-Nazi websites and fake news websites). And please explain why is this somehow central to Donald Trump's life? Especially after you edit warred to minimize the mention of sexual assault allegations, which are in fact a notable subject? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, wait, this is sort of funny. The CNN source is from the "Entertainment" section. And the first line is "it happens every presidential election". Ok ok, let me go to the Obama article... ... ... nope, nothing there about celebrities moving out of the country. George Bush. Nope, not there either. Millard Filmore. Oh wait, he got to be president cuz Taylor got pneumonia or something. Come on, can we please be serious here? This is trivial crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If you really must, file a proper WP:RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary. Why would it be? Doc talk 07:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Care to describe how I've scraped "the bottom of the barrel"? Or is that just a colorful substitute for an argument? Can you find sources about celebs that said they would move out of the country if Obama won? That's right, didn't think so. You might also watch bandying about the "neo-Nazi" straq man argument, unless you can point out which of the sources I have presented are "neo-Nazi". Athenean (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You scraped the bottom of the barrel, by, like I said, picking out essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign. From borderline sources. I don't have to find any sources about celebs moving out if Obama won, because I don't wish to put that kind of stupid inane trivia into his article. And if you do a quick google search, it's easy to see that aside from the couple sources you mentioned above, it's pretty much all alt-right and neo-Nazi crap that keeps harping on this topic.

Seriously, if you really genuinely believe that this is something that is crucial to the biography of Donald Trump, start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeating a bare assertion, no matter how colorful, does not make it true. How do you know I've picked out "essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign"? Oh look, another "bottom of the barrel" source [44]. Wait, is that the Washington Post? Btw RfC is for when several users reach a genuine deadlock, not for one lone user's WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections to relevant, sourced material. Athenean (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This was brought up like moments ago. Just because you managed to jump in early does not mean you get to have your way. Here, let me state right here that I am challenging any content about this nonsense. Wait, is this article under discretionary sanctions? You cannot include this without clear consensus. That means an RfC. Oh look, Wikipedia policy. Or at the very least give it a bit of time so that others can comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's some more "scraping" [45]. Seriously if you wanted to argue against the addition of this material, you could try more convincing arguments. Attacking the sources as "neo-nazi" is just not going to cut it. Athenean (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... not a reliable source. Maybe not neo-Nazi, but definitely not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And the "convincing argument" is simple. This is not something which is central to the life of Donald Trump.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Central" to the life of Donald Trump. Define "central". No limit on how many words you use. Doc talk 08:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Wait, did you just say the Washington Post is not reliable? Did I really read Volunteer Marek saying the Washington Post is not reliable? Both the Post and the Times are reliable sources. Your bare assertion to the contrary is just that, a bare assertion. Btw, no one said it's central (see straw man), just that it's worthy of mention somewhere in the article. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't get too excited. I didn't say the Post wasn't reliable. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to misrepresent my statements. The Washington Times however is not reliable. And really, I get it, you know a latin phrase, you don't have to keep linking it it, doesn't magically make what you claim true just because it's in latin. It's not worthy of mention because it's "textbook trivia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well so far we've had a bare assertion, then we had a straw man, then WP:IDHT, then another bare assertion. What about the Washington Post? If it's significant enough for the WaPo to mention, why not for wikipedia. Answer, please. Athenean (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir! Right away sir! Seriously, can you drop the tone? So here is a reminder. Something being mentioned in the sources is a necessary (that's a Sine qua non) not a sufficient (that's a sinus quack quack) condition for inclusion. The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities. So tell you what, why don't you take the few sources that you have and go to the articles of the celebrities themselves and try to include this info... oh wait. Never mind, that would violate BLP. I'm sorry, can't do that either.

But you know what is actually important and could possibly be included in this article? Donald Trump's use of twitter. Tons of stories about that. In real reliable sources. And how his staff had to take it away from him in the last weeks of the campaign because he couldn't control himself and almost sabotaged his own campaign [46]. Yeah, there should definitely be something about Trump n' Twitter here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Some more "scraping" [47]. This is one heck of a barrel. I keep scraping and scraping, and that bottom doesn't seem to end. It's the gift that keeps on giving, I tell ya. Regarding Twitter, believe it or not, I actually agree, however, you should be aware that there are sources state that his use of Twitter actually helped him win (as opposed to Hillary's highly professional PR staff). Not sure if you'd want that in the article though. And let's stay on subject, shall we? Athenean (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Trump supporters dare celebrities to pack their bags". Yeah. That's scrapping. But if we're gonna put things that Trump supporters do in to the article on Donald Trump, how about Trump Supporter Attacks Elderly Gay Man: "My President Says We Can Kill You"? If the celebrities stuff can be put in here, why can't that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Athenean [48], when somebody replies to your comment, and you want to change it because you did something wrong, then the proper thing to do is to strike the part of your comment that was incorrect, rather than alter your comment. Otherwise it looks like I'm replying to something that is not there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So sad. First of all, it's "scraping", not "scrapping". "Scrapping" is what should be done with your influence on this article. Doc talk 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This is an argument, not a discussion. I honestly don't think either of you is going to win this argument, nor can I imagine what such a win would look like. Suggest a suspension of said argument and waiting for comments from others. I'm leaning toward one average length sentence, maybe two, certainly not a section. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So attacks by Trump supporters can go in here too, right? There's plenty of sources for that as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Separate discussion. No linkage. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Same principle. And dealing with both at the same time we'll make it harder for some editors to try and apply double standards and twist themselves into logical pretzels of hypocrisy (not anyone here, just you know, that always happens).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Yes, one sentence is what I was thinking for the celebs. There is no need for more, really. Athenean (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please hold off, per discretionary sanctions, on adding ANYTHING about this to the article, until more people have had a chance to comment. Better yet, please hold an RfC to determine consensus. The world is not going to end if we wait a bit (I hope).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree as to hold off, disagree as to RfC. This does not rise to RfC-worthiness in my opinion, and it's way premature to decide we can't reach a consensus without a time-consuming RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is of course no rush. However I do note so far there are 4-5 users in favor and only 1 against. Athenean (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this doesn't deserve inclusion. It's one of those fluffy issues that come up in election campaigns etc, and quickly get forgotten. We shouldn't try to preserve it. Wikipedia should only record the things that people will still want to know in five years' time.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well the celebs' histrionics this time around were so severe, that they received quite a bit of coverage. I think this is something people would be interested in in 4 years' time. Doubtless we will see the same then. Athenean (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a forum for electioneering.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should only record the things that people will still want to know in five years' time" is a statement either: a) so "tongue-in-cheek" that it simply must support the proposal, or b) is so unbelievably inept that it is comical. Either way, it's amusing! Doc talk 09:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest this goes in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article or the United States presidential election, 2016 in general since they were trying to support Hillary as well. It seems notable for a campaign, not really for a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest it go nowhere. What coverage this has is fluff. Quasi-humorous pieces by commentators who have run out of other things to talk about. As many of these sources actually point out (see The Hill for instance) such talk is common before every hotly contested presidential election. And they never follow through on their threats. It was just talk and everybody knew it. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if such a story made sense to include, how would you expect anyone to move out of the country within two weeks of the election? And if some celebs do move, I don't see that as worthy of inclusion either -- unless 5% of the country moves. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Demagogue

There are many sources which describe Trump using the term "demagogue". Just do a Google News search for "Trump demagogue" to see what I mean. This is an important concept from a historical perspective, and the very frequent use of this term by certain sections of the media is surely notable, however the term is not used once in this article. In the Demagogue article there have been many attempts to add Donald Trump to the list of well known demagogues, but discussion on that article rightly suggests he is not a long-standing enough example in the 2400 year old history of demagoguery to be included. I appreciate the need for this article to remain politically neutral, but surely the frequent use of this term deserves a mention in a section regarding criticism of his campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.58.42 (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked for the term in a recent article from CNN.[49] Doc talk 13:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm obviously not saying it's used it every single time he is mentioned. 90.254.58.42 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a term that Trump's opponents used, but i do not see any support for its use in reliable sources. The article already says, "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist."" Demagogue is term used to describe populists on the other side. TFD (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Do not include. It's a poorly defined word to begin with, so it's basically impossible to get Reliable Sourcing for it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think reliable sourcing may exist. But, I agree that the definition is too fuzzy for inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Transition 2017 photo

Please contribute to ongoing RfC — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shall we use this new photo of Donald J. Trump, from his Transition 2017 video. Seems to be perfect for now, instead of that 2015 picture. —User1937 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC) File:Donald Trump, Transition 2017.png

Missing info: Grandfather a military service dodger banished from Germany and later ran a brothel.

Former per a citation that is in the article, [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/trump-canada-yukon-1.3235254 "Donald Trump's grandfather ran Canadian brothel during gold rush"

] - yet used to cite other info. Latter per new article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/trump-grandfather-friedrich-banished-germany-historian-royal-decree --Elvey^(t•c) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)