Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

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)
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.[1] 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[2] --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)

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)

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)

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.[3] 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)
Agree with The Four Deuces, MelanieN and Objective3000. Not that Trump is above criticism but the term is not only fuzzy, it comes off as another biased poke a him. As a rule we should be exceptionally careful when using media sources. If and when a 'Historical reputation' section is included in the bio' that sort of (premature) assessment might work there, along with other views, for balance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 22 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).[4] --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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)
I believe this was discussed, and rejected in a previous RfC. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 03:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Former per a citation that is in the article, "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)

It belong in the article about his grandfather not here. TFD (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - that other info is not important.--Elvey(t•c) 19:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Also agreed as to "not here", not necessarily as to "It belong in the article about his grandfather." ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Guilt by association? "Ooh, lookit what his grandpa did"? We don't do that - certainly not based on a single source. I don't know how much of it belongs in the grandfather's article, but none of it belongs here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be of very little relevance to Donald Trump. Maybe if his grandfather is notable, it'd go in his article. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 02:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Can't believe some of the stuff that's hit the fan since the election. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely useful info for Frederick Trump, but yeah, not here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 23 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

  • Appreciate the effort, but this photo isn't really any better. Though it may be a current photo, Trump looks sort of tired and/or worried here. Was this the best shot of Trump in that video? Oh well. Instead of trying to get a pleasing picture in place I think I'll go climb Mount Everest instead. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That's every Trump photo ever though. So you really don't agree this is better? He's even actually looking INTO the camera instead of away... User1937 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

loser.com and memes

should something be added about loser.com or anything related to that? Daisy134 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you're not serious. No. User:ArcherRafferty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No. This is of little significance. Dustin (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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.[1]" I propose doing something like that here (modified so it is about him instead of her). --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Conway, Madeline (November 15, 2016). "Clinton's lead in the popular vote passes 1 million". Politico. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
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)
This is highly argumentative and almost robotic reasoning. We are writing a narrative, not a consitutional outline. No one said the 'popular vote' had any bearing on the overall election. Plenty of articles offer historical context, per a well written article with depth of knowledge, so not mentioning the notable and controversial popular vote, in the General election Victory section, would be sort of silly. There are more than enough readers who would welcome and find this bit of information interesting, esp since it was a controversial issue that help to fuel the protestor's anger and discontent. It also gives us a perspective of how close the election was. Anyone who happens to be fanatically 'not interested' with this perspective can simply read on with the rest of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I try to avoid this article (quite successfully!) but really! Gwillhickers, Marek, and Melanie are right. Of course we say he lost the popular vote. Not in the lead, though, but in the "Victory" section (presently 6.6). YoPienso (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to a recent contribution the popular vote margin is now covered nicely in the Victory section (Formally the General election section). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Putting "Chairman of Trump Organization" on infocard?

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)
Well regardless, don't you think the chairmanship should be added to the infobox anyways? The average person looking up Trump might not know about Trump's business career, so adding it would make the infobox more informative about Trump's previous leadership position before becoming President-elect, and his leadership of the Trump Organization is indeed an important detail, not a minor one - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:27, 24 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)

Time for a break?

Happy Thanksgiving to all! -- Even you guys on the other side of the globe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I support this WP:NOTFORUM violation per WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Title Page Requires Edit ASAP

The Trump title page here requires a quick edit of the word "Charman." It should read "Chairman," I believe, but seeing as the page is protected, I am unable to make the correction. Will someone who has the tier level of authority please make the change? Thanks. Hardhatpoet (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Priebus

please change ((Reince Preibus)) to ((Reince Priebus)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:c5e1:6dd2:926:5138 (talk • contribs)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The IPA shows the popular Hollywood accent, but that's not how he as a New Yorker pronounces his name. --2.245.142.249 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New picture

Please contribute to active RfC at #Trump Photo 2 Rfc. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

File:Donald Trump, Transition 2017.png

ANYBODY THERE????? LET'S GET SOME CONSENSUS GOING...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad photo, can we just wait till we get Trump's official White House portrait before changing the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thin-skinned

Apparently DT is upset with NBC for using a shot of him looking goofy. This is one of numerous publicly expressed concerns about his image. Notable for the oddity, much like the Streisand effect, and of particular relevance given the RfC above, where goofy has been mentioned a few times. Anyone mind if I assemble a section supported by RS? --Pete (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The term "goofy" is perfectly okay as long as it describes Trump, Scott Baio, and the basket of deplorables. All other uses of that term ("goofy") are subject to the standard WP policies and guidelines. Doc talk 14:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
How does the fact that some editors have used the word "goofy" in an RfC make this more "notable"? I fail to see the connection. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Because Trump used the term first with Elizabeth Warren.[5] Mystery solved. Doc talk 14:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
He IS thin-skinned, no doubt about that (see for example his reaction when Saturday Night Live made fun of him [6]). But there is no way this or anything like it belongs in the article. (Assuming this was a serious suggestion, which it may not have been.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Entirely serious. It is a major character trait and we have a multitude of well-sourced examples of DT over-reacting to trivia. It is a large - and apparently voluntary - component of his public image. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
A section on DT over-reacting to trivia sounds like trivia squared. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other methods for you to fulfill your Trump-rage that don't involve unnecessarily editing Wikipedia articles. User:Archer Rafferty

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)

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 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, Queens [7], Jamaica Hospital very helpfully says the name was almost changed cause they moved to a building 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 maternity wards were built on the Jamaica side of Van Wyck Blvd during the War (which was a field in 1924 aerial photos) and Trump was born only 10 months after V-J Day 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. Even now when the hospital's much bigger 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 contemporary photo I could find of Trump's birth hospital. The visible part of Jamaica near the hospital is empty fields. And aerial photos from 1951 (click "map type" to see) show what looks like plenty of empty land touching the hospital so why build a maternity ward across the boulevard that you might know or suspect would become a big barrier soon? By the time WW2 stopped construction the city planner had already built many freeways and the planned N-S Queens expressway was moved to Van Wyck in 1945. If the hospital's owner somehow got word that the huge (1.6 mi2) golf course 3-4 miles away closed ~early '42 to build a huge airport he should know even then that expanding to Jamaica's would be a bad idea: the airport site's sole highway was a twisty E-W route into the city and Van Wyck Blvd was itching to become a straight highway to the Queens highway nexus (Interstate 678 (New York) was the only one not built yet). 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. However Richmond Hill's still too WP:SYNTHy to put in the early life section right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sagittarian Milky Way: Quoting WP:OR, "The phrase 'original research' is used to refer to material—such as facts—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article." More likely than not, at least one authoritative record of the fact in question has published in the decades since and hasn't yet been destroyed... So you can go ahead and add the information immediately. (At some point you might want to add an aggregated citation to the most important sources you've found.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: If you have a New York Times subscription you can see their list of hospitals from February 1, 1946. What does it say about Jamaica Hospital? (address(es)?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed it and added his real birth certificate from ABC News. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what 70s birth certificates had but Trump's '46 birth certificate had borough and hospital. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:52, 22 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.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 15:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI: [9] and User talk:SNUGGUMS#Trump birthplace. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Commenting following discussion from my talk page on the matter (where I learned of this thread). As I said there, I would have to go with New York City, New York or Queens, New York. Leaving out state makes it incomplete. It also incorrectly assumes that every reader is American or knows about the nation's geography. We should make things easier for those less familiar with the United States by at least including state name. A problem with suggesting NYC is enough by itself is how doing so overlooks the fact that Wikipedia isn't just a US-centric site. I can understand leaving out country from the parameter if concision is a concern, though it honestly wouldn't hurt to include that as well if desired. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my reasoning at 11:23, 22 November, which this doesn't really address or counter. Let's bear in mind two things: 1. New York City isn't just any old city but likely the most widely known city on the planet. 2. For the precious few readers who are unclear and care, enlightenment is but a click away. We often seem to lose sight of that fact. No article is an island and we have wikilinks for a reason. Printed articles are a relatively minor consideration. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I am well aware that many people know about the place and that links can be accessed to read additional details. However, you've overlooked how not everyone has good vision/reading skills. Blind people who have things read to them need something informative, and any blind person unfamiliar with US geography surely would benefit if more than just a city was given. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that there is a substantial body of blind readers unfamiliar with New York City's location and unable to ask their reader to follow the link to find out about it? If not, I am minded to go back to what I think of as the consensus version. I find WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE pretty compelling. --John (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
While I haven't looked into that extensively, there IS a difference between being concise and giving too little detail. Don't confuse the two. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE isn't an excuse to be under-informative. It says to include key facts, and one's birth state certainly is a key fact. There also hasn't exactly been a clear cut "consensus version". Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
At risk of repeating myself, I don't see the need to disambiguate New York City unless there are multiple New York Cities in various locations. If you can provide evidence that this is the case, I am happy to reconsider my view, which is I think the consensus view, that New York City, U.S. is the best solution here. In the lack of any such evidence, I'd say we are maybe finished here. --John (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Snuggums, your blind reader argument was adequately countered and you did not respond to John's request for evidence. That eliminates that argument, meaning you still have not responded to the argument about target article title or the point about wikilinks. You seem to be asserting "under-informative" and "key fact" as indisputable premises while both have already been disputed and countered by two editors. As a matter of fair debate process, I'm inclined to agree that you have lost this one. I'm restoring "New York City" per EvergreenFir, Dervorguilla, Mandruss, JFG, and John. Besides you and Doc, no one else has participated in the debate since 15 November as far as I can see. As I said, this is as close to a consensus as we're ever likely to get, given the multitude of possible permutations for this field. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said, my examination hasn't been extensive, and it would take a while to gather, but we shouldn't risk inconveniencing readers (blind or not) who are less familiar with American geography. Think about and remember how not all Wikipedia viewers live in the nation or knows about its features. That doesn't just outright "eliminate" my point as you suggest. It's best to play things safe by not leaving it out. There are also those who don't read/speak the English language very well, and those learning English terms for locations probably wouldn't get much out of just giving a city name compared to city and state names. Wikipedia is supposed to inform people, not leave them scratching their heads, even with links. We shouldn't downplay the fact that city only could be too little to inform others. Furthermore, no other city/town in the US that I know of is listed without accompanying state no matter how prominent they are or if they are the only ones of their name, so it doesn't make sense to give this any special treatment of its own. The rationale for omitting state is overly US-centric and—as I indicated before—too presumptuous. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel that any person reading this article, sighted or not, is far more interested in Donald Trump's life than in where in the world New York City is. That would seem a relatively minor consideration, then. If a blind person is unable to click a wikilink, this is the least of their problems in an online encyclopedia that is built around hyperlink technology (or the Web in general). I remain unswayed and, unless others are moved, I think you're on the losing side of consensus here no matter how compelling you feel your arguments are. That's just the way it often goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

change all instances of the article referring to Mr. Trump as the "president-elect" to the "presumed president-elect". He won't officially be the president elect until the electoral college votes in December. Dettledod (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed many times before (see the links directly above). Reliable sources are stating he is the president-elect, and therefore we also should call him the president-elect. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: @JudgeRM: De-activating the request is part of the response :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Shit, you're right. Sorry 'bout that. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mlpearc (open channel) 18:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump won the general election on November 9, not on November 8

Pennsylvania was called in the early hours of November 9 at about 2:48 AM.

172.98.155.13 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

All of the votes in Pennsylvania were cast on November 8, aside from absentee ballots. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Tower

User:HaeB wants to discuss [10]. zzz (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Or not. I'll try again. zzz (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not the president-elect

Unless I'm mistaken, Trump is NOT the president-elect until he's actually, y'know, elected by the electors of the Electoral College. The popular vote has merely indicated that he's likely to receive a majority of those votes, when the election occurs. But he's not the official president-elect until then. Korossyl (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. --2600:8805:A001:C900:98E2:3E7B:F4F9:6B32 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The media is referring to him as the president-elect. The inauguration is already set for January 20, and it doesn't seem likely that anybody else will be inaugurated as President of the United States. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Per our article President-elect of the United States, the title is not yet finalized by the Electoral College, however he IS the President-elect officially. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. You would need a source to say that it is only finalized after the electors vote. And it is not actually finalized until Congress counts the electors' ballots. The votes from Ohio were challenged in 2004 and debated in the Senate. Had they decided differently, Kerry would have been president-elect. But we go with the description used in reliable sources, rather than arcane desciptions. The Act btw did not create the concept of the president-elect, hence it does not matter how it defines it. It matters how it is used in ordinary discourse. TFD (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times previously, see [11], [12], [13], [[14]]. The consensus is that regardless of any legal quibbles about his status, Reliable Sources are unanimous in referring to him as the president-elect, and our job is to follow the Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! So... he ISN'T the president-elect, but WP:NOTTRUTH. Annoying but acceptable. Korossyl (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
He is the current President-elect. This is required so that the transition can occur and he can be briefed on intel. If the electors say otherwise, or he dies, that will change. For now, that's what he is. Objective3000 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Lord above, this is getting ridiculous. He IS the President-elect, even the bloody President HIMSELF, calls him that. We need to stop arguing about pointless material when we could be polishing this article up before the inauguration. Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs)

Chairman Infobox

Last year the article had a section of the infobox similar to this one:

Donald Trump/Archive 36
Chairman of The Trump Organization
In office
1971 – January 20, 2017
Preceded byFred Trump
Succeeded byIvanka Trump

Would it be appropriate to add it back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computermichael (talk • contribs)

I think it'd be a positive to add it back in, it helps inform readers what other position Trump had before the Presidency quickly and neatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it should be there. His business career is prominently displayed in other templates, such as Template:Donald Trump series and Template:Donald Trump. At the bottom of this article, his business positions at The Trump Organization is also listed using the succession box from Template:s-bus. Since his business career has been treated equally notable as his newfound political career, equal weight must also be given on the infobox.
As an aside, has Ivanka Trump been confirmed as his 'successor'? If not, then I would remove it. I would also avoid listing 'January 20, 2017' as the end date until that date has passed. Edge3 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this detail should be added to the infobox too, but an earlier section started by me on this very same topic yielded a few opponents towards it as well, so we'll see it goes. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to cite the relevant guidelines. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states in part: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Since Trump's business career is an integral part of his biography, it must be included in the infobox.
Note that we do have precedent for listing non-governmental positions on Template:Infobox officeholder. Elena Kagan's article lists her tenure has Dean of Harvard Law School. Ronald Reagan's role as President of the Screen Actors Guild is also listed. Surely we can take a similar approach on this article. Edge3 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone, just letting you know that I've added the suggested details to the infobox, given the discussion we've had here with more people coming out in support of it. However, I omitted the Jan. 20 end-date, which we can include once Jan. 20 has passed. Also, I've omitted Ivanka Trump as the successor, as I wasn't sure whether this is verified. @Computermichael: do you have a source? Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks! And to my knowledge there is no official succession plan apart from "my children will take care of it", so let's wait. — JFG talk 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a specific date he became Chairman? We know it was in 1971 but for such a high profile page we should really have the month and day as well.Computermichael (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

None of the related articles mention a more precise date. Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know that there was an attempted removal of this information, which I've reverted. Edge3 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The Trump Org. is a private company, it is not a public office, it doesn't belong in the infobox of a politician, especially considering that Trump will be the 1st president without public service experience, having only the presidency there is also important to convey that fact.   Spartan7W §   00:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm also not sure what you mean by tangible consensus, as there were already 5 editors in favor of the change, and 0 against. I know we don't count votes, but the consensus wasn't going to get any clearer than what we already had. I think you should have raised your concerns before making the revert.
What do you think of the articles for Ronald Reagan and Elana Kagan? They're in political/governmental positions, yet their infoboxes list other positions. Edge3 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. See Infobox officeholder § Personal data: "Occupation"; "Profession"; "Known for"; "Civilian awards". You can enter the information in the fields provided for your use. Also, please don't cite 1 lone US President's infobox out of 46. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

On that note, I also oppose having SAG on Reagan's infobox but couldn't find support at the time to support my removal, and for Kagan, executive university positions fall under the scope of public offices seeing as though the academy (public or private school) are important institutions in public life.   Spartan7W §   15:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump/Archive 36
Personal details
OccupationChairman and President of The Trump Organization

So, taking Dervorguilla's advice, I've added it as "occupation" on the infobox. Hopefully everyone can agree on adding Trump's chairmanship to the infobox this way. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach that everyone can agree on. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That 1 lone President is a pretty well-known and notably recent one. Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Just because we have only one other presidential example (Reagan) doesn't mean that we should ignore it. It is rare for someone to become president without prior government or military experience, so we don't have many stronger examples than Reagan and Kagan.
It seems that Template:Infobox officeholder was designed for those with only political/government careers, not for someone as unique as Trump. Thus, we shouldn't try to shoehorn the Trump article to fit within the strict parameters of the infobox. If the infobox isn't designed properly, then we should change it rather than remove notable content. Edge3 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
If. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Why must we treat the infobox as an immutable object? Doesn't make much sense to me. Note that Template:Infobox officeholder is neither a policy nor a guidelines. Our discussion here demonstrates that the officeholder infobox needs the scope to be expanded to accommodate a unique, non-political position such as the ones held by Trump, Reagan, and Kagan. MOS:INFOBOX does not prohibit non-political offices from appearing on an officeholder infobox; such decisions are left to editorial discretion. Edge3 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, this revert by Naue7 cited policy, but I'm unsure of which policy is being referred to. The only relevant page I found was MOS:INFOBOX, which is not policy but rather a guideline, and it's silent on whether non-political offices may be listed here. Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

He IS the President-Elect

So if we could stop trying to make stupid and pointless edits from President-elect to "presumed President" (Which is not and will not ever become an official title) that would be fantastic. Thank you. Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Archer Rafferty, the thing is, he isn't technically elected president until the electoral college elects him as such, so he really isn't the president-elect. We have to remember that it's the electoral college who determines the president; the people only determine the electors. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 08:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
oh lmao maybe i should read the above sections first before commenting Dschslava Δx parlez moi 08:42, 27 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 [15] -- 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:[16]

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)
Maybe she did maybe she didn't (she didn't) but regardless it is simply not true that the FBI director "called her a liar" as you claim. "She lied to the public" is your own opinion, which you are of course entitled to have, but the fact that Comey did NOT call her a liar is a matter of record. See how this works? Comey says "she did not lie to the FBI". A partisan senator asks him "did she lie to the public?". Comey says "I'm not qualified to answer that". Right wing media runs with story "Comey calls Clinton a liar". Fake news sites and bitter BernieBros pick it up and spread it around internet. And then it becomes one of those things that "everyone knows". This is actually sort of frightening if you think about how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 23 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)
No, sorry. Just because he is going to be president doesn't mean we should rewrite history. This much-fought-over word "false" was based on solid sources - not opinion pieces, but factual reporting that found: yes, all politicians including Hillary stretch the truth, but Trump established a whole new paradigm by repeatedly saying so many things that were demonstrably, provably false. It's important to have that in the article. Well, I guess I would be OK with leaving it in the text but removing it from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
JFG, your proposed alternative completely misrepresents the consensus that was reached here, to wit:

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.

SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fair to discuss alternative wording given the rough consensus, particularly when even some of the Support votes included the condition "with attribution". In fact, if you read the RfC: Clarification notes of the closer, Sandstein states "my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy." Morphh (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem to consider alternatives, but JFG's proposal completely changes the meaning, so it is not an alternative but rather a negation of consensus. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no valid reason to revise the wording, attribute it, or remove it from the lead. We just went though an extensive discussion about this and arrived at a consensus. Those wishing to modify the consensus should be presenting new information, not the same weak arguments that failed to gain any traction the first time. To answer the OP's question "So we're just going to call the man out as a liar as a statement of fact in the lead?" directly: No, we're going to follow the preponderance of sources that have documented the fact that Trump has made many false statements. This is what we are required to do according to WP:NEUTRAL. - MrX 04:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
There is valid reason. As quoted above, the closer stated in the clarification that consensus was to include inline attribution. Also WP:BLP states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" and it "must be written conservatively". So I think you're on weak ground to argue no changes, particularly no attribution when consensus and policy are to include it. I get there is plenty of sources and I didn't suggest it not be documented. While I don't think the weight is sufficient for the lead based on article content, the primary problem is the WikiVoice.

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

While I think a bigger change is appropriate, a minimal change such as this would help. It's still weasel, but at least it's shifting the statement to the sources. Morphh (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change since I think it better fits the consensus, still maintains the statement, and reduces the perceived bias of Wikivoice by referencing an attribution, albeit not directly. Morphh (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
To clarify why attribution is necessary beyond citing policy and consensus, the generalization of the sentence makes it subjective. The definition of "Many" is "a large number of" which is an opinion of relative size in relation to truthful statements. If we were citing a particular statement, it wouldn't be a problem. But since we're using subjective terminology and applying it various factors, it becomes an opinion about the body of his statements, which needs to attributed to a characterization. Morphh (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
What "clarification" are you referring to? And given that we had an RfC on this, please don't make any changes without AT LEAST holding another one. There's clearly a lack of consensus for any changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
(and for the record, I oppose holding another RfC for the very good reason, already articulated by others, that there's nothing new here. No new sources, no new developments, no new information. Absent that, it'd be just repeating the same discussion and a waste of time).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe another RFC is necessary since the first RFC stated that attribution was consensus as described by the closer "my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy." So no new information is needed, since it's clear in the RFC that the reasoning I stated in my clarification (which I added as a reference to the RFC opinion regarding my proposed addition above) was the consensus. But if we refuse to attribute, which is required by policy and described in the RFC consensus, then I'd be happy to hold another RFC on the matter. I made my change because I thought I was upholding the RFC consensus, not reversing it. My feeling is that editors failed to properly implement the consensus of the RFC based on the discussion and took it as an up or down vote even though the consensus wanted attribution added. Morphh (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The RfC did not state that. Sandstein is just commenting, somewhere else apparently, about how he was reading some of the votes, not issuing any directive about what should be done, except for adopting the proposal itself. Here's the actual closure: "There is rough consensus to implement the proposal.". The proposal was to have the wording: ""Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false". This is what we have. There's nothing in the proposal, which was implemented per closure about weaseling the wording. Sorry, but your edits are borderline WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The RFC discussion has a consensus for adding attribution. Sandstein's statement are in the RfC: Clarification when asked to clarify certain aspects of the RfC closure. The fact that the RFC gave approval for including the proposed statement doesn't change the discussion, which wasn't focus on attribution but inclusion. However, a consensus did conclude that it needed attribution and policy requires attribution in both NPOV and BLP. The subjective wording makes it an option statement. So, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I'll also note that the only weasel word in the statement is "Many" which was in the original proposal - adding the words "characterized as", which means "describe the distinctive nature or features of" is not weasel. Morphh (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No, it has no such consensus and that's not what the closure of the RfC says. Look. There is a reason why RfCs are required to be worded precisely and why they are required to specify the actual proposal. It's so that exactly the kind of wiki-lawyering that you're engaging in does not sabotage consensus. There was an RfC about implementing a specific proposal. It was closed as "implement the proposal". That's it. Don't make stuff about what it was or wasn't.
As to Sandstein's later clarification, he says " Therefore, in my view, consensus for the proposal also extends to the footnotes." That's it. It has nothing to do with whether this sentence should be weaseled or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to disagree about if the discussion contains a consensus for including attribution. Is "Many", which is relative, a subjective word? Can we agree that "Many statements are false" is a judgement where others may hold a different view regarding the meaning and quantity in relation to true statements, be it more or less? Morphh (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
You may "disagree" to your heart's desire, provided you don't edit war and you don't snag article talk page discussions by NPOV editors. Otherwise, you may as well pack your toothbrush and head for AE. You're not a newbie around here. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Wholly inappropriate, "false" should be removed from lede. I remind fellows editors we're writing an encyclopedia not a HuffPo blog post. Here [17] is an interesting analysis by Fareed Zakaria. Usable for attributed opinion but in which section? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, you said above that if it's opinion then we need to attribute. I understand that we can present examples and sources for false statements. My concern is we're not citing an example, but generalizing the body of Trump's statements. Is the judgement quantifying "many of his statements" (a large quantity relative to truth) a fact or an opinion? To me, this sentence is expressing an opinion about facts. Morphh (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a fact, not an opinion, that he has made a large number of false statements, and therefore "many" false statements. The first word is appropriate and the sentence is an objective truth. Of 334 remarks examined by Politifact as of the 28th, 233 (or approximately 70%) of those statements are "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants on Fire". AndrewOne (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

In the list with children, one is missing: Barron Trump. Tbc (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Only notable children go there. Barron is not notable as he does not have a standalone article. He did have one, but it was redirected to Family of Donald Trump per a deletion discussion. Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sasha and Malia Obama also don't have their own articles, yet they are still listed on the Barack Obama infobox. In this case, I think it's appropriate to include Barron, along with the other children. Edge3 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Right. It is well-known that Trump has 5 children, one of them a minor. By that standard, the latter deserves privacy (as was argued at the deletion discussion) but he is nevertheless notable enough to be mentioned. If we keep him out, we will face constant edit-warring to bring him back, and perhaps a battle to re-create an article for him. On the other hand, if we mention him and link to his section in the family article (via existing redirect), the infobox section about Trump's family will be complete and Wikipedia will be at peace. — JFG talk 21:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done – Looks like he was reinserted (not by me, although I agree). — JFG talk 01:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Lennyboi (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The redirect is correctly pointing to the artist. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

Trumpmurt (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

proposing a change to a sentence in the final paragraph in the lead

existing: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, by earning more Electoral College votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

proposed: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 with a projected 306 electoral votes.

reason: Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote is something about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump. No other person is mentioned in the lead, so it seems out of place Hillary Clinton is mentioned. Any detail about people other than Donald Trump is best left to subsections. 216.165.192.26 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition, mentioning Hillary Clinton while leaving out other candidates such as Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin seems to be highly disrespectful. The election wasn't limited to two persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.118.216 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been extensively discussed here. The consensus is that one of the historic things about his election is that this is only the fifth time in U.S. history that someone won the presidency without winning the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The popular vote means nothing. It does not determine presidential elections in the US. Popular vote is applied to the states + DC, never nationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.192.26 (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is the previous discussion on the matter. The consensus seemed to be to follow the notable sources, and at that point, comparatively few sources were discussing that she won the popular vote (and her margin wasn't as high as it is now). Since then, however, there have been loads of notable articles written about that, so it's been put into the lead. JasperTECH (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
No one denies Hillary Clinton got more popular votes than any other candidate. National popular vote is irrelevant to the election. It does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the subsection. There are many trivia about the election other than Hillary Clinton having more popular vote than any other candidate. No trivia deserves to be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.118.216 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 Not done In prior discussions, the balanced consensus was to include the fact that Clinton received a higher share of the popular vote and to leave out any statistics or historical trivia. The current phrasing accurately reflects this consensus, thus shouldn't be altered without a new open discussion. — JFG talk 04:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_36&oldid=1144108428"