This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Add the following: Under Trump administration with at least 58 fatalities and 515 injuries the deadliest US mass shooting took on October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas. 91.82.167.139 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Currently in the whole article the gun occurs only ONCE: "Trump supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general" but in it perfectly fits the mass shooting, don't you think that as he is the president for almost a year he has some role that the shooter owned 23(!) guns in TEN bags into Mandalay Bay sniper's nest where he put legally converted full-auto assault rifles on tripods ? 91.82.211.101 (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Considering that presidents don't make laws, no I don't. He can sign or veto, but nothing has been presented to him by Congress. Even if he fully supported tighter gun control laws, that wouldn't make the NRA lobby any less powerful or the Congress any more likely to pass anything. ―Mandruss☎08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Despite my facetiousness earlier - my point is: What has Trump personally got to do with the shooting? Why is it relevant to his article any more than the death of Tom Petty is? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN for now. As time goes on (weeks, months...) perhaps his reaction to it and how it affects his legislative agenda might be appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The LV shooting has no relevance to Trump whatsoever, as Sandy Hook had no relevance to Obama until it affected his legislative (and executive) agenda, paraphrasing what A Quest For Knowledge said. Right now, and probably in the following weeks, Las Vegas has no place in this article. We'll have to wait later to see how Trump's response to it develops and if it has any repercussions in his agenda; then it might be a good idea to include it. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2017
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is too much anti-Trump bias on this page. For example, this said that Trump has "lied" multiple times, even though not everyone agrees with these claims. I suggest either removing the bias by putting the claim in quotations, by someone who has claimed he has lied or has been biased (e.g. a politician, news reporter, etc.), putting examples of his lying or bias, or removing it altogether. I am not saying to remove all negative statements about Trump as some of them are undeniably true. I am saying to edit parts where there is potential anti-Trump bias that that could be damaging Trump's reputation. In conclusion, be aware that not everyone dislikes Trump and remove any
potential bias. Aliencreeper13 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The word "lie" only appears once, in the Campaign rhetoric section: "At least four major publications – Politico, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his campaign statements" - Considering that this is the only place the word appears and it is complemented by "or falsehoods," I don't think the article is too harsh, at least in terms of "lies" or calling Trump a "liar." Master of Time(talk)21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was going to say before Mister Master jumped in and spoiled everything. Well I spent a good five minutes on this and I'm not throwing it away. Not done Where are you seeing this? My browser finds:
lie - No occurrence.
lied - No occurrence.
lies - One occurrence. "At least four major publications – Politico, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his campaign statements." Correctly attributed, well sourced, consistent with Wikipedia policy.
Many editors feel we should be devoting more space to this issue, given the large amount of coverage of it in reliable sources, per the policies WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:DUE. If anything, the article is biased in Trump's favor in this area.
But if you can find a similar number of equally reliable sources who say that Trump doesn't tell any more falsehoods than many previous U.S. presidents, I will support addition of one sentence about those sources. It shouldn't be added without discussion and consensus for it, however, so I think edit request would be the wrong approach. Just start a new discussion thread providing some links to reliable sources. ―Mandruss☎21:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't burden this discussion with bourgeois values that associate lying with sin and perfidy. Lying is a tactic and with respect to POTUS, it is well-documented in RS and it's very effective and Trump uses it with noteworthy sophistication that's amply discussed in RS. SPECIFICOtalk22:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Serial commas: yes or no?
There are multiple occurrences of a lack of a serial comma in the article. Were they purposely removed? Are they disallowed? Wondering the rules for this page are different than some of the lower class pages.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2017
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
You should verify academics because Trump is not a graduate of 'Wharton's,' you previously listed the under grad school: "University of Pennsylvania" this is the only school Trump attended, and he received a "Gentleman's degree" a BA. Information provided by classmates, Wikipedia (until recently. Please investigate for accuracy, as is false. 2605:E000:F050:7600:D545:D145:4E34:73FD (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done:The article correctly states that he received a B.S. in Econ. from Wharton. Wharton is both grad and undergrad. O3000 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
+1 - Graduated from Wharton, as seen in the first cited reliable source. Also easily confirmed in other reliable sources using Google. Wharton is part of UPenn. Current content has been discussed and has consensus, and this discussion is accessible via #Current consensus item 18. ―Mandruss☎20:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Lead
"a travel ban on citizens from eight mostly Muslim-majority countries"
I read it as "most of the countries are Muslim-majority, but some are not". If there's a mistake, it's in accuracy, not construction. That's not to say that it couldn't be clearer - if it confused an intelligent person like yourself it will likely confuse readers - and probably should be made clearer. I'd justfixit, but I'm in the lazy phase of my biorhythm cycle. ―Mandruss☎07:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I boldly removed the "Muslim-majority" qualifier[1] which no longer makes sense with Venezuela and North Korea. I realize this runs afoul of consensus item #23, but prior edits to this phrase already went against consensus, and there has been no formal discussion of recent developments about the travel ban (countries removed/added, Supreme Court allowing temporary execution, then refusing to hear arguments, etc.) The shorter wording I chose looks easier to handle. If people want to start a discussion, go ahead, I'm too lazy to frame it properly now. — JFGtalk10:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten #23 or I would have reverted any change on sight. My preference would be to rewind, revert to #23, and do it the way it should have been done in the first place. It's either that or supersede #23 with a new, discussion-based consensus (i.e. to my knowledge we have yet to allow a consensus in that list to be superseded by an edit-based consensus). ―Mandruss☎11:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The wording should maintain the muslim majority language. 1. This is an article isn't about his last ban. Its about the entirety of his Presidency, as such the previous bans are essential. Moreover, there is ample evidence that religious considerations were the motivation, which is historical.Casprings (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the consensus #23 phrasing, even though it is now outdated. Please suggest new wording to take into account recent developments. — JFGtalk21:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The amendments to the travel ban aren't even mentioned in the body. The wording still applies. At most "(later amended)" should be added. Galobtter (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Ellis Island Medal of Honor 1986
Just curious why the Ellis Island Medal of Honor that Donald Trump received on October 27, 1986 is not listed on this article under the " Awards, Honors and Distinctions" section? The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is awarded each year in celebration of “patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity”. It's well documented that he received the medal. GixxerSteve (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This medal used to be listed; it was removed from the article in April 2017,[2] along with a few other awards of lesser notability.[3] No prejudice against including it again. Trump is listed among "notable recipients" in our article about the medal. — JFGtalk23:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Does this article still suffer from technical size limited noted in the external links section? Adding the awards of "lesser notability" could make this problem worse. I would suggest that we spin off the section into its own article but I think that article could have the opposite problem of being too small. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has been significantly trimmed since those notes were added. I don't think adding a few lines and a few cites would be any problem. — JFGtalk11:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Duplication between immigration orders section and travel ban section
There is quite a bit of duplication between those two. They talk about basically the same thing. It makes sense to me to merge the immigration orders section into the travel ban section, and then only leave at most one or two sentences describing the travel ban in the first 100 days section. Galobtter (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done while you were writing this. Moved it out of "First 100 days" because that section makes little sense anyway: per a previous discussion its contents should be pushed to other relevant sections. — JFGtalk05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That consensus was to prevent daily updates. However there appears to be significant coverage of his new net worth (just google "forbes donald trump"). An forbes Senior Editor has also talked about it which has been reported in an Financial Times article. So I think it is reasonable to update since this is a significant change that has been reported by numerous secondary sources. Galobtter (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
But it doesn't really matter. His net worth fluctuates quite a bit I assume. And leaving it at the yearly update that forbes gives saves trouble. Galobtter (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I've noticed that forbes has come out with a new top 400 richest americans lists. There was support in the original discussion that if forbes publishes an article/a static list updating Trump's net worth, then that could be used. And the discussion linked for the consensus itself wasn't a huge one and I didn't actually see a clear support for only yearly updates; rather mainly just for stopping daily updates. I think it is reasonable to update everytime forbes releases an article/static list with an updated net worth. (which should be every few months or so I think). Galobtter (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I argued the same last year and that argument didn't prevail.:) Don't know that we want to relitigate. Besides, no one really knows the liability side of his balance sheet. O3000 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider that a completely valid reason to keep the word. There are many reliable sources out there that use words that violate WP:WTW when describing Donald Trump or his actions/policies/statements, and we use alternative, more neutral words to replace them. Same with this case (in my opinion). Seeing that it's OK according to User:SPECIFICO, it'll stay for now. Codyorb (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why he said "I'm over 70" in 2014 when he was only 68, but in any case the birthdate is definitely established by the link to his birth certificate. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like he might have been quoting the account mentioned, as their profile suggests they were over 70. Either way not enough evidence to suggest incorrect age. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this worth noting in the article? Donald Trump has no paternal or maternal English ancestry (he is German and Highland Scots descent, respectively), nor has he been married to any Anglos. Literally, 0%. This is quite an unusual thing in American history and applies to very few presidents (as far as I can tell, just Trump, Martin Van Buren, JFK and maybe Eisenhower, but Ike's wife had Anglo blood/connections). Certainly, the British have moved against very few US presidents as openly as they have against Trump. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Martin Van Buren was the only president not to speak English as a first language. His "non-Angloness" is only mentioned in passing as context to that. On the other hand, I don't think the importance of "fourth president without English ancestry" is evident and it sounds more like a triviality, you know? Any links between that and his relations with the UK would have to be supported by reliable sources. Swarm♠17:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't think this is an important enough fact to include in a professional article. It feels more like a useless piece of trivia to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that many Americans (especially in the south western part of the country) erroneously use the term "Anglo" to describe any non-Hispanic white person, so in the unlikely event this term is used, clarification would be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Before adding it there or anywhere we would need reliable sources for the claim; are there any? In addition, Scjessey is quite correct that the term "Anglo" is not synonymous with "English". "Anglo" is often used in the United States to mean "non-Hispanic white person" or "person of northern European descent" (see WASP). Trump himself has British ancestry (his mother was Scottish), though not specifically English ancestry. His ancestry is entirely northern European; Barack Obama remains the only president for whom that is not the case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Trump's mother was a Gaelic-speaking Highland Scot. She is not an Anglo and is from a completely different ethnic group than the Lowland Scots, English and "Scots-Irish" which until fairly recently ran the United States. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
What is exactly "hostile" about accurately stating that no reliable sources discuss this and thus it's not appropriate for the article? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
How do you know that Trump has no English ancestry? English people did migrate to Scotland and Germany. TFD (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Until some actual Reliable Sources are produced saying this - and indicating that it's important enough to include - I declare this discussion to be closed as Original Research. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
New phrasing for travel ban in lede section
No consensus to mention details of the ongoing legal challenges; link to detailed article instead: Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban. Moderate support to replace number of countries affected by "several". Updated accordingly; to be reviewed when new events unfold. — JFGtalk09:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following recent developments, our consensus wording for the travel ban in the lede section is no longer accurate. I suggest changing it from:
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after several legal challenges.
to:
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was amended twicein the face ofamidlegal challenges, and was eventually approvedallowed to take effect by the Supreme Court.
Rationale:
The article has been updated to describe the evolution of the travel ban since its initial wording.
The number of affected countries has changed twice (seven, then six, then eight, two of them non-Muslim).
The vetting procedures for numerous countries have been reviewed, leading to more precise acceptance criteria.
That initial order still involved 6 muslim majority countries, so having six instead of several would also be true. Also just because some of the legal challenges were dismissed doesn't mean the supreme court "approved" of it. That implies that it actually had a decision (say 5-4 etc) approving it, which would be conclusive. I'm not sure if all the challenges have been dismissed and there might still be more challenges for the new travel ban which could get to the supreme court. Until a final decision is made I don't that "approved by the Supreme Court" can stay. Apart from that it looks okay. Galobtter (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that the difference between six or several is minor. I do agree that with the current situation saying "approved by the Supreme Court" is not something we should do. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it's minor. The main thing is "approved by the Supreme Court" which as far as I know is not being said by any RS. Galobtter (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please undo your revision of the wording. It's an extreme example of refactoring talk page text after others have commented. It makes the whole section below into an unintelligible mess of inscrutable jibberish. Please. You can comment as to changes or improvements in an orderly way below, and that would allow constructive discussion to continue. SPECIFICOtalk16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree. He should've created a separate discussion with the amended wording by posting below, so there isn't a mixture of people responding to the original and to the revised version. Galobtter (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It would be pointless to keep a proposed wording which was rejected by the first few editors who commented. By amending the proposal in place, new participants can see immediately what is being proposed, without reading the whole discussion. — JFGtalk02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You've violated talk page guidelines and made a mess of this process. We already knew that. 2 editors at least pointed that out. Dunno why you'd cling to it. SPECIFICOtalk03:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a need to stat a new talk page section and survey to make a minor change to the proposed wording. If there's a talkpage guideline saying not to do that than this minor refactor is a good application of WP:IAR. With the strikethrough, underline, and comments below nobody is going to be confused. ~Awilley (talk)06:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Support in part. I think the ban, as amended, is reported to have been upheld (not "approved") -- or, to be hypercorrect, its most significant elements have been upheld (in that Hawaii is reported to have sought to frustrate the ban as amended). --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Support mostly. I think “amid” would be better than “in the face of” because it’s more concise (also less suggestive that all the changes were because of the legal challenges). I also agree with Dervorguilla that “upheld” would be better than “approved” (judges often disapprove of stuff that they nevertheless are obliged to uphold). Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC
The supreme court hasn't upheld anything yet. They temporarily approved some of the first version (denying an injunction) and then seemed to have dropped the case later as moot. The revised version seems like it needs to make its way through the lower courts first. Either way the supreme court definitely hasn't upheld it. From what I read, It has left the questions unanswered for now. Galobtter (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven’t followed these cases all that closely, but I seem to recall that SCOTUS did reject a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the whole thing. But indeed that would be a bit different from upholding; “tentatively upheld” or something like that might be more accurate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose No poll or survey of editors is going to change the fact that the Supreme Court did not "approve" "the" travel ban. What's now in place is a different measure and no RS tells us that it has been approved or sustained by the court. What's needed is not an editor's OR "rationale" -- we need RS descriptions of the situation. The proposed language obscures the fact that the measure was not enacted. The current regime is something different. It's not "the" ban and it was not "approved" Please work from RS accounts. The first version is still fine. The second is inaccurate and insinuates POV. SPECIFICOtalk13:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
In its brief order, the high court asked the Trump administration and the ban’s challengers, including states and refugee advocacy organizations, to file briefs on whether the case should be dismissed.
I think that "permit" (particularly in a legal context) suggests affirmative approval. The court simply stood back from taking a very strong affirmative action against the ban by easing a small aspect of the Federal Appeals Court injunctions. The issue ultimately will be adjudicated, unless the Trump Administration drops the matter. Some sources suggest that will be the ultimate outcome, as the newer versions of this restriction bear less and less resemblance to the illegal initial version. SPECIFICOtalk15:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.
I would disagree that, with respect to legal authorization, "allow" is synonymous with "permit" -- but at any rate there's still the key point that "the ban" keeps changing to remove the clearly illegal parts for which the Administration apparently has no defense. So the Appeals courts' rulings have not been reversed en masse and the proposed language does not present a full and accurate picture. What is wrong with the first version? SPECIFICOtalk15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear SPECIFICO, I do not engage in OR: all the points mentioned in my rationale were culled from recent RS about the matter, which are all cited in the article body or in the main articles. Let's work on a good wording. — JFGtalk17:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not say that you 'engage in OR' so please don't confuse folks by misrepresenting my words. If you have a reliable source that states the US Supreme Court "approved" "the travel ban" a link would be helpful to us all. SPECIFICOtalk17:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
In your first comment on the survey, you wrote quite eloquently What's needed is not an editor's OR "rationale" – given that I am the "editor" who provided a "rationale" for this proposal, I was bound to take your remark as a personal accusation of OR, so I pointed out to you that none of the motives listed in my rationale were OR. If you don't want your words to be "misrepresented", then please pick more accurate words, and focus on content, not people. Regarding the wording, I have already changed "approved" to "allowed to take effect" which is more accurate according to several comments including your main objection. — JFGtalk02:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's never advisable to personalize talk page discussions. If you feel so personally invested in your POV that you're unable to discuss it in terms of content, there's little chance of progress. Blaming me for your ownership issues really makes no sense. SPECIFICOtalk03:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussing in terms of content is precisely what I do. Just cut the redundant aspersions and insinuations, please. — JFGtalk06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Specifico. The supreme court has been ambivalent on the whole issue really.
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was amended twice amidst legal challenges
Cutting the supreme court part is better I think as above, but even then what we really need to do is find how RS are describing what has happened to the travel ban—the correct wording may actually include the travel ban being amended because of the legal challenges as making it more written by national security experts and not having religious exemptions reduces the legal challenges etc. Galobtter (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah they were content with allowing the second version of the travel ban and the third version of the travel ban is still being discussed (i think in lower courts)..I'm not sure how we can explain all that in one sentence. Agree have to include somehow that the third version is indefinite and in effect. Galobtter (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment – I have amended the proposed wording, taking into account the comments from the survey so far. Please check this version. Remember that we can't go into too much detail in the lede, so we shouldn't mention exact terms of the first/second/third version changes. — JFGtalk16:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment I do still feel that this sentence will probably be removed from the lede in its entirety next year, so I have no strong preferences as to its content. The changes seem to be an improvement that reflects recent events. power~enwiki (π, ν)
Oppose The SC did not fully allow it to take effect. It put conditions on the government about the relationships the parties had to US residents. The effects of those conditions are still in the lower courts.Casprings (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I may not understand the full import of the changes being proposed, but as far as the lede is concerned, I view the original text as having basically the same import as the revised proposal. I propose to change "six" to "several" as JFG suggests, but otherwise keep the original text, which is simpler. I also believe the original text is consistent with the variety of changes and past and ongoing challenges the ban has faced. -Darouet (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment At a glance I think "six" --> "several" is an improvement. I think the bit about the Supreme Court is a bit too much detail for the Lead. ~Awilley (talk)05:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment The edited replacement language only makes the proposed text less clear and accurate. "Amid" suggests environment or ambient circumstances rather than legal reversals by the courts, which is conveyed by "in the face of". "In the face of" accurately denotes opposition. Weasel #1. Then as previously stated in this section above, the ban was not enacted. The limitation that was enacted is not the same as the limitation that was found to be illegal. So Weasel #2. Things are going from bad to worse here. The original text is fine. The proposed text insinuates POV into what should be simple descriptive text. SPECIFICOtalk12:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose mentioning Supreme Court - there has been no determination on the merits yet, and the Hawaii's case, which deals with both travelers and refugees, remains pending before the Supreme Court. We should wait until there has been some decision on the merits before mentioning the Supreme Court. And just today, a federal judge issued a new temporary restraining order] blocking the third travel ban from going into effect. Neutralitytalk19:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed text implies that the ban is a wholly done deal (especially being written in the past tense - not absolutely sure about the existing sentence, either). Premature given the outstanding complaints from Hawaii and Maryland. Would it not be more accurate to rephrase the existing sentence to indicate that the ban remains an ongoing process? Cpaaoi (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I find it hard to vote for any of the options because the travel ban thing has gotten rather complicated as the previous two bans have already expired and a new one is in place, targeting other countries besides the six Muslim-majority nations in the previous bans. It's also a bit sketchy to say that the SCOTUS "allowed for it to take effect" as they did so with certain restrictions. They dismissed the case on the ban only after it expired and was replaced with a new one. I would support mentioning that there was more than one ban; maybe we could simplify it and simply say that he has placed restrictions on travel from certain countries since the beginning of his presidency. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Time to close or withdraw before any more editors waste time on this. No support and it's hardly applicable after latest vacate order. SPECIFICOtalk02:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The new wording is misleading. It implies the Supreme Court has approved the new order. In fact it quashed an interim injunction by a lower court. The executive order will be allowed to be carried out until final determination by the Supreme Court on its legality. It's similar to someone appealing a financial judgment. The appeal court will vacate the order that the defendant pay the plaintiff until the appeal is heard. It does not mean that the defendant has won the case. TFD (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Retracted Support When this RfC was begun the amended travel ban was in effect. Challenges are irrelevant, existing laws are challenged regularly. An injunction would be relevant but none existed so I would have voted Support. Except as of a few hours ago Watson issued a new injunction [4] so the proposed wording would be inaccurate. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear...I think we first need to atleast keep our travel ban section updated. This time it is definitely expected to go to the supreme court, so we can maybe get a resolution on this atleast. But that means that a new wording definitely now needs to be created; including the fact that an injunction has blocked the travel ban as of October 18. Galobtter (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Abort – In light of recent news, I agree with Awilley that it's too early to mention the status of legal challenges, and we should wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits. Suggest to keep the prior wording and just change "six" to "several" countries. — JFGtalk09:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm late to this party because I've been on vacation, but I'm opposed to changing this at this time, since the situation is still very much in flux. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose specified wording, but general Support for updating the statement. As has been noted, the Supreme Court did not rule on the actual constitutionality/legality of the ban, but rather lifted part of the injunction, on legal grounds relating to the manner in which injunctions are approached, procedurally. Even then, the court left significant portions of the injunction in tact and limited the class of individuals who could be reached by those provisions which were cleared to proceed, for the present time. So I don't think "allowed it to proceed" adequately captures the scope and nuance of what the court's ruling entailed--that subject, to be fair, is a complicated one, and difficult to capture in lay terms for any encyclopedic summary, let alone the micro-summary of the lede. Even so, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to try to include mention (in the lede, that is) of the depth of the legal disputes, and the involvement of SCOTUS--even in advance of the court coming to a point where it is going to rule on the core legal issues, especially as constitutional scholars and other observers seem to feel the court is not exactly chomping at the bit to review this one and may defer the matter as long as possible--but the wording would have to be adjusted substantially. Snowlet's rap23:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Minimal change request
In light of the survey above, and given the ongoing legal battles, I suggest to amend the earlier consensus wording #23 by changing "six" to "several" because the number of countries affected has already changed several times. I also suggest to link "travel ban" and "legal challenges" to the dedicated articles. The net result is:
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after legal challenges.
Linking to a generic meaning would not be sufficiently informative to our readers, but I agree that the Easter Egg is suboptimal. Perhaps linking "a travel ban" instead of just "travel ban" would convey that we are talking about this particular travel ban? Or link the whole phrase "a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries", but that's ugly. — JFGtalk05:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Since lead is summary, I don't see why we necessarily need to link to the specific in the lead. That detail along with others is in the body. If a reader doesn't make it that far I think that suggests they aren't interested in the details of the executive order, in which case the link is superfluous. Failing that reasoning, I prefer long links to eggs, and including the article "a" is only marginal improvement. ―Mandruss☎05:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Try this: “He has ordered a travel ban including restrictions on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban has been partially implemented amid ongoing legal challenges.” Wikilink only “legal challenges” because that provides lots of info about all the different versions of the ban. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Not much less eggy than linking "legal challenges", and I don't think it's sufficient reason to add a word that otherwise wouldn't be needed. Like I said I could live with the latter. ―Mandruss☎05:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
We ought to just go with NPOV. Based on a solid majority of reputable mainstream sources (but grossly oversimplifying):
He ordered a travel ban that targeted several Muslim countries. State appellate courts quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, citing his personal Islamophobia. A few months later, the Supreme Court declined to affirm, and reversed in part...
Both the appellate courts and the mainstream press emphasized, reemphasized, and continue to passionately emphasize -- at great length -- Trump's personal xenophobia. So we do have to mention this as the key issue. It's OK to add that SCOTUS dismissed this argument as not even worth discussing. But we can't unring the bell. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Weak support. It's pretty minimalist compared to what I'd propose, but it reflects the pragmatic facts, while delaying the political and legal discourse until later in the article. I can get behind it. Snowlet's rap23:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
OpposeBut I would suggest:
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban is currently blocked by a preliminary injunction because of concerns about discremenation against Muslims and overstepping the bounds of U.S. immigration law.
2. Second, we need to mention why the courts blocked the travel ban to be WP:N. Otherwise, it seems like the courts are blocking him for no reason.Casprings (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well the restrictions on venezuela and NK are active; but the ban on the muslim-majority countries, which what we mention, is blocked. That seems quite a bit much for the lead, which needs to summarize what all has happened to the ban.. Galobtter (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This OP proposal is another POV version that obscures the nature of the various versions of the "ban" and the courts' findings in blocking it. Casprings version is much better. I would be OK with something close to that. SPECIFICOtalk14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well it is just a one word change from the current version. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we can't atleast agree on that. We can do a bigger change later...Galobtter (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The Americans say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I am puzzled by the insistent efforts to tweak the language of this bit when the current version is more or less OK for an evolving and still-developing story. It's ham-fisted and in my opinion should be dropped. SPECIFICOtalk15:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Support - The restriction does not focus does not solely on Muslim majority countries. Also since the exact number of countries and which countries are covered in the body of the article the lead can be simplified. With linking travel ban to executive order 13780, I'm not sure. I like the idea of the sentence linking there but it feels off to do it on travel ban. PackMecEng (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
C'mon. "The" restriction is a fiction restriction. It keeps changing every time it's blocked by the courts so that there won't be a headline saying "Trump travel ban dead." There is no "the" restriction. It's like chasing rabbits around a cornfield (a pastime my late husband and I used to enjoy every spring at Easter). The central point, however, was that the implementation of the campaign promise Muslim Ban was blocked by the courts and that POTUS, rather than fight and lose on the merits, has kept changing the story. Remarkably, with little to show for it. SPECIFICOtalk18:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifico, you seem to be conflating your pragmatic analysis of Trump rationalizations with the legal reality here, which I suspect, based on your comments immediately above, you may not be entirely well-versed on. Without getting into Trump's motives and how much we should credit his claims as reflecting his true motives, we can still say that the most recent version of the order is in fact in effect, as a matter of law and practical fact. Further, the recent rulings and orders by SCOTUS, while not in and of themselves a final decision on the legality of the ban, nevertheless give a strong indication that the court is prepared to rule in the President's favour, should it give full review. Discouraging as this may be for a large portion of the U.S., it's not entirely surprising. Because of longtime trends in both legislation and jurisprudence, the president has very expansive authority over the administration of immigration policy; Congress granted the Executive something approaching plenary power in regard to immigration controls, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly approved the broad scope of executive discretion in such matters, even the face of countless constitutional challenges going back more than a century.
Now, the Supreme Court can look past the text of the order and look at Trump's highly public statements about the racial and religious nature of the ban--and with the right court composition, it could easily find each variation of these orders to be unconstitutionally discriminatory. But there's a lot of reason to believe the present court won't do that. Under the present statutes, administrative processes, and Supreme Court jurisprudence, the president really just has to make a pretty minimal display of a 'rational purpose' analysis in order to justify their admissions policies; the first two executives orders were amateur hour and lacked sufficient justifications on these grounds, but the version of the orders which resulted from the most recent proclamation has a more substantial national security analysis undertaken by the relevant agencies, and clearly this goes a long way with the court, even in the face of the President's public statements. And again, while no one was sure which way the court might first move on this issue, the rulings have not been altogether surprising; this is a highly conservative court and probably the most deferential to executive authority of any court since the Progressive Era.
Finally, the court's recent order concerned injunctive relief, and whenever that topic comes up, the court does a minimalist review of what they think the petitioning party's chances are of prevailing in a full review. The court's comments in the most recent ruling, and their ultimate decision, are both highly indicative that the court could come down on the side of POTUS on this issue, no matter how "obvious" Trumps rationalizations are and how many people see clear discriminatory intent in his policies. In the meantime, without question the orders have been partially implemented and immigration procedures are adapting accordingly. So your assertion that the administration's efforts are merely a face saving gesture and a show, without real functional implication or legal force, is just plain wrong. They've made substantial legal headway, and stand well positioned to perhaps prevail on most of the major issues. Snowlet's rap00:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide rela- tionship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.
The injunction continues for those that have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." What is a bona fide relationship? Who knows. That is what is working its way through the lower courts again. Moreover, this is CLEARLY a compromise between the liberals and the conservatives on the court and should, in no way, be seen as an indication for how the court will rule on the case.Casprings (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Casprings: Your comment seems to be arguing that no one's been banned yet... And I think most RS say that's not so... Maybe you could clarify this point? Also, do you have a response to my point about NPOV? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I don’t understand your comment. I am just saying what the SC actually said and adding a little bit of analysis. If you don’t have a “bon fide” relationship with someone or something in the US, the ban clearly stands. But defining what that is, is difficult(per Thomas’s opinion. Moreover, it doesn’t really offer any guidance how Kennedy will decide the case in the end.Casprings (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Casprings, even by the most expansive definition of that language that's been employed in law for a bona fide relationship--and it's not a "who knows" situation for the the most part; there's a lot of BIA jurisprudence, agency regulations, and even statutory language in the INA as to the meaning of this term; the parties are simply disputing whether a few key relationships can be included--but again, even under the most expansive definition, that still leaves the order in tact for a majority of those which the ban was intended to cover. Also, you cited one small portion of the holding; the issues at bar extend well beyond that. As to your assertion that it's "CLEAR" that this order resulted from a "compromise", you may want to write up your analysis for a law review article, because there's a lot of doubt amongst experts about where the court is headed here and what that ruling portends, but your theory is not a leading one. Myself, I was not trying to assert with anything approaching certainty which way the court might be heading--I thought my wording had made that clear--but rather was rejecting (as plainly inaccurate) the notion that the Trump administration's repeated efforts in this area had no pragmatic consequences and that they were only keeping at it so Trump could appear not to have been defeated. That perspective is clearly ignorant of the legal reality here, because the Government has clearly made significant gains recently in advancing the POTUS agenda. It's still very much an open question how things will fall out over the next few years, but A) the order is currently in effect for a majority of those it was intended to cover and B) the chances that the current court will uphold key provisions of the order under review is a lot higher than the average person (or indeed even the average nightly news anchor) seems to realize. There's just so much settled law on executive prerogative in this area, and this isn't the most likely court to break this particular trend. Anyway, even if this does indirectly inform upon the editorial issues, we're getting a bit off track. If you have a response you'd like me to read, it might be better to place it on my talk page--cheers. Snowlet's rap04:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I think Justice Thomas in the linked opinion, would disagree. He is pretty clear that he believes, and is correct, that this will result in a wave of lawsuits on what “bona fide” means. I think that cite gets to the core of what they decided. If there are other parts I missed, please cite the important bits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I would disagree with the assertion that a lot of litigation about the meaning of that term is on the horizon--because I don't. The two points I made on that topic are: 1) that there is already much BIA jurisprudence, INA statutory language, and agency regs defining the meaning of that term-of-art with regard to visa applicants and other admitees, and 2) the parties are contesting its meaning with regard to a small (but very important) subset of relationships. The question of the scope of the issues is a very different one from how many different actions there will be and how big the stakes are. I don't think we're that far apart on the latter two matters. Snowlet's rap06:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - As I stated before, the situation is in a state of flux. I would prefer to see it play out before changing the existing text, although I think Casprings might be on the right track with the proposal below. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't even know what version we are talking about now, after recent news and court actions. I would support the wording suggested above, He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was amended twice amidst legal challenges. I'm not even sure what the status of the ban currently is; I think it may be in effect for North Korea and Venezuela but not the other countries. I think we need to come up with a general summary like the above, and not try to keep up with all the twists and turns here in this biography. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Alternative text suggestion
Wanted to suggest:
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a preliminary injunction currently prevents the full implementation of the ban because of concerns about discrimination against Muslims.
1. This text provides the current state of the ban. It is mostly blocked by a preliminary injunction.
2. It is important to tell why the ban is blocked. While courts have linked the logic to both current immigration law and to constitutional concerns, at the core is the view that the ban discriminates against Muslims. We should provide the reader with more context, even in the lede. To leave that out gives the reader the impression the court is blocking legitimate national security concerns for no rationale.
Weak Oppose - I think this is mostly an accurate summary, but I fear that the final claim ("because of concerns about discrimination against Muslims") is a bit of an oversimplification. This was surely a major concern cited by the lower courts, but the matter is a little bit more nuanced than this phrasing reflects; after-all, the class of individual which the Supreme Court allowed the ban to proceed against are Muslims to exactly the same extent as are those for whom the injunction was upheld. I don't disagree that the core issue here is the question of discriminatory intent, and this has been reflected in the rulings and (critically) sources covering the rulings. But I still feel that the proposed wording is too perfunctory if we are going to get into the business of classifying the disparate reasoning of the courts, in the lead. Snowlet's rap04:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I actually gave that a fair bit of thought when posting the above, but I couldn't come up with anything that wasn't problematic for the lead in one way or another, and continue to favour the current wording, because it dodges the issue for the time being, while still noting that there is legal controversy on the issue. Insofar as the statement continues to include a link to our article on the ban itself, it presents an opportunity for the reader to follow up on the complexities, which is good enough until we strike on the right wording for a more nuanced (but still brief) description of where things are at now. I'll keep thinking on what I might propose for that last clause, though--since yours is the logical and obvious response to my initial comment. Snowlet's rap06:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alternative suggestion: wholesale removal from lede
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it stands to reason that it is early days to burden the lede of a president in office for less than a year with all the newsstream hoopla bites, the real significance and notability of which (for an encyclopedia) have yet to be proven. Mind, i amnot suggesting removing it from the article, only from the lede. I believe this suggestion is especially convenient given the fact that the ongoing debate appears to have deadended.
Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose the overall removal of this passage (concerning the travel ban) from the lede, i.e. this sentence as it now stands: ″ He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after several legal challenges.″.Axxxion (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a core campaign issue, a core policy objective, and one of the most widely reported and discussed issues of the Trump presidency. SPECIFICOtalk23:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose One of the most important events and policies of his Presidency, far more than most of the other stuff mentioned in the lead. Galobtter (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - It's frankly ludicrous to suggest we should exclude one of the most pivotal policies and scuffles with the courts of Trump's presidency. It has received overwhelming coverage in reliable sources. Also, I suggest Axxxion be trouted for suggesting editor's !votes "are based on partisan/political rationale" - a clear assumption of bad faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per above observations: a major (and to date, defining) feature of Trump's presidency, which presidency is itself going to be covered at some length in the lead of this article, as the now single biggest part of his notability. This is a borderline WP:SNOW call on a simple WP:WEIGHT analysis. I also agree, especially in light of the most recent comment below, that there is something fundamentally bad-faith, needlessly inflammatory, and just generally unhelpful/WP:Disruptive in how Axxxion has decided to interject comments about other editors here; Axxxion, please follow the Wikipedia policy of arguing the point on its own merits, rather than trying to attack the character of your "opposition"; speculation of the motivations and supposed flaws you believe you have divined about your fellow editors are not a proper (or a permissible) part of the analysis of content issues during discussions on this project. Snowlet's rap04:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. It is hard to identify exactly where this crosses the line, but clearly the line has been crossed. This is the wrong venue to debate the definition of the word "intellectual", how human society is run, etc. ―Mandruss☎17:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
WP is not not news media and overwhelming coverage in the news in and of itself is not the basis for the thing being covered in a lede of an article in an encyclopedia, which WP claims to be. In fact, if we were truly serious about this claim, we would not begin writing about a president′s presidency until it is over and we have unbiased scholarly assessment and analysis to tap. But at the very least, we could attempt to eschew the news stream′s political nonsense in the lede. It is all inevitably political in the way it is written now, moreover the ″consensus″ (not) achieved here reflects the dominant view of a tiny minority of American public, mainly intellectuals whose worldview is constructed by reading NYT and watching CNN, usually underemployed too and thus having time for this extremely time-consuming project. Amnot saying that the controversy about ″the travel ban″ is not important： am saying its real significance (meaning) is not clear at this stage. It obviously reflects an intense struggle inside the U.S. establishment, but for now all we have is political shouting matches and opinionated recriminations, it is all the fog of political war thus far.Axxxion (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"[T]he dominant view of a tiny minority of American public..." This is a bizarre statement that is both factually inaccurate and dismissive of "intellectuals" (who are really just people who bothered to educated themselves). Literally millions of people marched in disgust over this executive order. To anyone with at least two brain cells to rub together, the travel ban was clearly based on a desire to exclude people on the basis of their religious beliefs. The carve-out for Christians in Muslim-majority countries was clear evidence of that fact. It was an astonishing slap in the face to the secular basis of the nation, and a clear violation of the US Constitution, which the courts confirmed. Trump was forced to change his order and revise its rationale to get the courts to partially agree to his unconstitutional act. These are the facts, and there is nothing "political" about them. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Scjessey, as you have begun to defend and define ″intellectuals″ as being educated, I will tell you that education per se will not help you understand how human society is run (and mass media is one of a number of important instruments whereby societies are run by elites), because the most important things about this cannot be read in books and research papers. But once one learns (not through education, but from life or career experience) that, for example, all staff journalists in all countries are always (without exceptions) in cooperative (subordinate) relationship with their respective country′s security/intelligence agencies, one will begin, while reading in press sth purportedly explosive, to above all think: Why and What for this was written? And Who is the real author? The only establishment in the U.S. that logically could have a serious beef with Trump′s order in question is the CIA, as Trump′s executive order effectively undermined CIA′s ability to recruit assets in the affected countries by promises (usually false, but still plausible in absence of ban) of subsequent immigration/exfiltration to the U.S.Axxxion (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
No I shan′t, as am not interested in this Cold War propaganda disputes, but i would be inclined to think it was all Hollywood produxion fake -- yes, based on universally known proclivity of Anglo-Saxon culture to create powerful fictions in order to suck off the wealth of those who actually work, but are not creative enough to manage securities/treasuries/derivatives and other fanciful yet very luctrative fictions.Axxxion (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Earlier I asked Axxion to discuss the issues and language of this article, not the other editors. I'll ask you to observe the same limitations. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I did not discuss other editors. Axxxion threw out some conspiracy theories, so I made a joke about the moon landings to highlight the fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Overwhelming coverage in published sources is the basis for being covered in the lede of an article—and if the only published sources about his presidency are so far news sources, those are what we'll use. The controversy may not have a clear significance yet but it is being covered so we include it. And insinuating sources like Reuters and the NY times to be political nonsense is ludicrous. Galobtter (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Axxxion, your descriptions and assumptions about the political opinions, lifestyles, and rationales of people with whom you disagree are offensive. Discuss the issues and the wording of the article, not what you think about the other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, but you are accusing me of things based on your fanciful interpretation of my postings, essentially on the basis of your own contrived opinion of me. I need not exonerate myself from your wanton charges; but i will tell you that you are wrong: I treat all humans absolutely equally, with equal disgust.Axxxion (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Axxxion: I don't see anything fanciful or contrived about interpreting this - It is all inevitably political in the way it is written now, moreover the ″consensus″ (not) achieved here reflects the dominant view of a tiny minority of American public, mainly intellectuals whose worldview is constructed by reading NYT and watching CNN, usually underemployed too and thus having time for this extremely time-consuming project. - as describing your assumptions about the other editors here. But as long as you are willing from now on to talk about the issues and language of this article, rather than the other editors, I am content. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I am sensing that the objections to the proposal I see above are based on partisan/political rationale rather than the Encyclopedia′s criteria and Policies: above all, the passage grossly abuses Wikipedia:Recentism – and not only in that it has happened lately, but, more egregiously, in the fact that it has not actually happened yet: the upshot of this executive order effort has yet to be seen, it is in effect an ongoing event. And thus putting it in the lede preempts history, as a matter of fact. Hence, the obvious inability of ours to arrive at consensus and endless wrangling over the passage.Axxxion (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Many editors here have voiced concern that Trump Administration talking point spin can be artfully insinuated into various "minor" editing and language changes on a range of American Politics articles. Also many editors have voiced concern that social media, cable TV and blogosphere talking points are being pushed as valid WP content, deprecating established and acknowledged mainstream media such as Washington Post, NY Times, and the like. There's nothing political in WP's content and sourcing policies and they are very effective at preventing the kind of POV tilts that have been proposed for this bit of content. SPECIFICOtalk17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:Recentism is about undue weight of recent events; an event occurring recently does not preclude it from being included. You're talking absolute nonsense. The executive order going into effect and being blocked in courts are significant events that have already occurred; enough to include in the lead. Galobtter (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok. But what is the actual meaning of this passage? I fail to see it. POTUS signs dozens of executive papers daily, incl CIA ″findings″ to kill persons by drones or otherwise, who have not been even charged with anything, all over the world, mostly in ″Muslim-majority countries″, the only objective qualifying criterion for such killings being that such persons not be U.S. citizens. All other humans are fair game for such arbitrary murder. That does not bother any one, as people do not want to know about it, and these CIA ″findings″ are classified until when no one is interested. Then, we have this ″travel ban″ that bans people who haven′t the remotest chance of going to the U.S. anyway arousing millions of Americans to feverish political activity. We do not yet know the basic facts even about the election campaign of Clinton/Trump: those are only starting to emerge (BBC: Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier). The only fact worthy of an encyclopedia about this ″travel ban″ is that it caused lots media coverage – that much is true. Why and wherefore it happened, we shall learn in a while, most likely; but at the moment we simply do not know. It is just news coverage. And WP is not a news media outlet.Axxxion (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Immigration limits - which he himself used to call a "Muslim ban" - is not a matter of "recentism". By his own choice it has been a defining aspect of his candidacy, and later his presidency, for the past two years. And its repeated imposition, and court challenges/reverses, have been a staple of the news for the past 10 months. BTW, "lots of media coverage" as you say is one of the main metrics we use to define what kind of WP:WEIGHT to give a particular aspect of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, I mainly agree with what you wrote immediately above. But if we proceeded from your logic, the text in the lede would go sth like this: ″He succeeded in implementing his election campaign pledge to restrict entry to the U.S. by citizens from certain security-risk countries after overcoming legal hurdles in American courts.″ But of course, this version hasn′t a prayer of being approved by consensus, as it implies Trump′s success, whereas the current one — the other way around. That is what I mean by saying the text as it stands now is politically biased (POV-pushing).Axxxion (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Axxxion: Well, I would say your version is fairly biased the other way; it certainly does not "proceed from my logic" or from the actual history of what he said and did. His original, loudly repeated, months-long campaign pledge was not "to restrict entry to the U.S. by citizens from certain security-risk countries" as you say; it was to restrict entry to the U.S. by MUSLIMS specifically.[5] Remember this - "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" - which he issued as a campaign press release and read out loud at every campaign rally?[6] He said that in December 2015; he was still saying it in June 2016. He eventually modified it to be about citizens from certain countries (all of them Muslim-majority), and that was what he tried to implement with his executive orders. His original insistence that the ban was to be against Muslims was what caused the courts to strike down his orders as religiously discriminating. But if you want to focus on his successes, the wording might go something like this: "On his third try, he succeeded in implementing travel bans against citizens from a few countries he had never mentioned before; however, his three attempts to limit immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries were struck down by courts." I am not proposing to put this in the lede, however. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, thanks for your detailed response. I hear what you say, but i always tend to think that treating people who run the executive branch in countries such as the U.S. by standards that are applicable to politicians who merely run for an office is wrong. I mean, what Trump said and says is ultimately irrelevant in comparison to what he is empowered to do and indeed does; and this ought to be highlighted. It is very obvious why he issued these orders: because he needed to publicly demonstrate that he seeks to make good on his campaign pledges. But any one who knows how immigration policies are regulated and effected understands that in essence the orders were largely meaningless (as i pointed a while ago: the executive branch has discretionary powers to ban/allow entry of any individual); what was staggering in this case is utter inadequacy of public reaction to these meaningless orders. And it is impossible to deny that this reaction was mostly political, fueled by bitterness of people who were not able to reconcile themselves to Trump′s win. Therefore, having this narrative in the lede in itself is a political bias, I believe.Axxxion (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Axxxion, it appears to me that you're arguing for an alternative mode of coverage if we were editors of a secondary source such as a newspaper or if we were writing our own account of the matter. But I think MelanieN's account more or less summarizes how those secondary sources actually chose to cover it. As WP editors, we're bound to convey the sense of that version -- regardless of the merit of some of your concerns. SPECIFICOtalk19:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, nice of you to have used ″it appears to me″: i think that is exactly the case. In fact, i am arguing for precisely what the major Policy of WP commands: ″WP describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.″ The lede′s text says the order "cites security concerns″, which is well and good (we have attribution to the text of the primary source), but then it uses this journalistic cliche descriptor ″Muslim-majority countries″, which is not found in the document in question, ergo, at the very least there has to be an attribution of some type or other explaining why we use this term (if we are to use it in the article′s lede in the first place).Axxxion (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, you are justifying your view based on the primary source, which is consistent with the point I was trying to make above. But as WP editors we must use secondary sources, and they do not agree with your preferred presentation of the Order - regardless of whether they are in any abstract absolute sense neutral or fair. SPECIFICOtalk18:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
But then we cherry-pick secondary sources to pander to our own political stance: for example, Foxnews does not use this cliche in its coverage of what it refers to as ″Trump's travel decree″ (the document is actually titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, but this is irrelevant, acc to your interpretation of WP:RS); moreover it stresses and cites Trump as specifically saying ″The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting″ (as reported by a secondary source). Thus we have the protagonist of this story (as well as others such as Chairman of House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul) expressly rejecting this narrative as false (for what it′s worth), yet we use this cliche in the lede as if we referred to an established fact, without so much as attributing it and explaining why this ″false″ characterisation is used, let alone without mentioning that this interpretation is expressly denied and rejected.Axxxion (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You would need to demonstrate that what you call "cherry pick" does not reflect the WP:WEIGHT of RS reporting. Fox News, by itself, does not represent the weight of mainstream reporting. It's one source, and in some recent matters has not been considered a reliable source. I really don't have more to add. It's a matter of conveying the weight of mainstream reliable source descriptions. SPECIFICOtalk19:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Donald Trump's Picture on List of U.S. Presidents
Archiving. This discussion is moot now that the White House has issued an official portrait with the proper permissions. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It turns out that Doug Coulter is OK with the official portrait's use on Commons, according to this. He states this in the very OTRS ticket that caused the photo to be deleted in the first place. Apparently, the only reason the photo got deleted was because Coulter did not want to state a specific license. If Coulter is OK with the photo being used on Commons and being attributed to him, he doesn't need to state a specific license. If we use this photo on Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, don't worry, we won't get sued. PhilrocMy contribs21:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me like admin Jim looked at the same evidence that resulted in the deletions and drew the opposite conclusion. Is it normal to do this without even discussing the situation with the opposing admins? How do we know they are even aware their decision has been overridden? ―Mandruss☎22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am aware it is unprecedented but then again the whole sage with this image has been unusual. @Jameslwoodward: Would you care to weigh in on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
His enwiki user page says "I work here on WP:EN occasionally". So he might not receive the ping in a timely manner, even if you signed your post, which you didn't. No signature in the same edit means no notification. ―Mandruss☎22:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said in my closing of the Commons DR, the OTRS ticket, while very complex, with a lot of back and forth, came down to the fact that Coulter is clearly willing to have the image on Commons as long as he gets attribution. The vast majority of our contributors do not have any real understanding of copyright, so we are usually very careful to get a specific license. Coulter, on the other hand, is a professional photographer and therefore thoroughly familiar with copyright. He clearly understands exactly what he doing when he expresses the willingness to have the image on Commons -- an irrevocable license for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. I don't see any reason at all not to accept his statement.
And, by the way, a ping here on WP:EN shows up at the top of the page even if I am working on Commons, so no worries there. I suspect that's true across all the projects. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That seems very reasonable to me. The federal government website says it’s a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and Coulter has not disagreed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Do you understand the desire of some of us for you to get agreement from the admins and OTRS experts who were involved in the deletion and failed undeletion? If your reasoning is that obviously correct, how hard could that be? ―Mandruss☎01:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 2,000 of them for one reason or another. The vast bulk of that work is done by ten Admins, who, of necessity, work very fast. We occasionally make mistakes or don't address subtleties as well as we should. I haven't seen the previous DR -- I couldn't find a cite to it -- so I don't know what my colleague's reasoning was.
What I do know is that on May 5 Coulter said:
"Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me."
When he looked at the page, he wasn't looking at the photograph -- he was looking at everything else, in particular the attribution and the license. I don't see any way to read "it's fine with me" in any way other than as an acceptance of the CC-BY license that he saw when he looked at the page on May 5.
I understand that you'd like a final word on the matter, but that doesn't happen here or on Commons. While both projects work by community consensus, that consensus can change from time to time. We regularly delete images that have been use on one or more WPs for ten years. As I said above, I'm confident in my assessment of Coulter's acceptance of the CC-BY license, but the community has disagreed with me in the past and will certainly do so again in the future. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Not until all involved admins have discussed this and reached agreement. As it stands now, there is little preventing the image from being deleted after a few days, once the other admins become aware of the new Keep ruling. This article should not suffer the instability created by admins' failure to communicate and coordinate with each other. ―Mandruss☎22:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of his close comments before you provided the link (that's where I got the "admin Jim" in my first comment). I see nothing in those comments to suggest that he discussed this with the admins involved in the Delete ruling and the failed undeletion request. ―Mandruss☎23:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Corkythehornetfan and User:Mandruss, which other admins do you want to hear from? If you tell me, I will ping them. Why do you expect that we will hear from them if we do not summon them? Alternatively, you can appeal Woodward's decision to keep the image. But if you don't tell me what admins you want to hear from, nor appeal Woodward's decision, then there is no reason to postpone this survey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 was one of the admins in the original discussion... I have already notified him on his talk page. Rob said one thing and James said something else, so they need to work this out before it gets used here again IMO and it become a "HUGE" mess again. This is an administrator issue, not a non-administrator issue. CorkyBuzz by the Hornet's Nest00:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Bear in mind that at this point we have one admin reading it one way and (as far as we know) at least four other admins still reading it the other way. The other three are the closers of the first deletion request (Revent and Josve05a) and the closer of the undeletion request (Natuur12). ―Mandruss☎00:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
We do not have it available under any specific irrevocable free license, as is required. We should not use it. The Commons admin who kept it the second time around supervoted and blatantly ignored Commons policy while doing so. ~ Rob13Talk01:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Philroc: Wikilawyering over a legal matter? How dare I! We require licenses to be irrevocable. A three word non-license is not irrevocable and therefore cannot be accepted by Commons. The fact a Commons admin supervoted doesn't change that. ~ Rob13Talk12:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: If you want a specific license, Coulter has implied in the OTRS ticket that he accepts a CC-BY license, as he saw one on the old photo and said he was fine with it. PhilrocMy contribs12:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
An implication is not a legally-binding release. We need a release. A consensus of OTRS agents agrees with that view and that the ticket is invalid. Of course, the Commons admin has decided to ignore that. ~ Rob13Talk12:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: When Coulter saw the CC-BY license on the photo and saw that it was attributed to him, he said that "it's fine by me". "It's fine by me". "It's fine by me." Those four words were his CC-BY release, no matter what hoops you wanted him to jump through to get the photo 'technically' released. If we keep this photo, we won't get sued, because Coulter has let us use the photo under CC-BY. PhilrocMy contribs12:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't comment specifically because I have no intention of breaking the confidentiality agreement I've signed. You're saying something substantially incorrect about what the ticket said, though. ~ Rob13Talk12:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Here's the full quote, if you want it: "Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me." If Coulter said this in the ticket, he said this in the ticket. You can't say that he disallowed the use of the photo on Commons in the ticket. PhilrocMy contribs13:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to confirm/deny what is written in the ticket or who sent it in, as doing so is barred by a confidentality agreement all OTRS agents sign. Having said that, if that was what was in the ticket, the attribution is rather clearly what he's saying is fine, not everything else on the page. ~ Rob13Talk14:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
He was fine with the attribution. Assuming he's fine with making that decision irrevocable (which is what the license does) is another thing entirely. Nowhere in the ticket does anyone say "I'm fine with every single word on the page." It was more along the lines of "I'm fine with the attribution." Those are meaningfully different statements. In any event, the image has been deleted. ~ Rob13Talk15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The content of the OTRS ticket makes clear that is false. Unlike my colleague, I will not breach the confidentiality agreement I've signed to give more detail than that. I will note that the White House is not the copyright holder and so cannot release this image under any license. ~ Rob13Talk02:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding whether a photo was released to the federal government under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, I do not believe that you have evidence proving that it was not released in that way. At most, you could have evidence that the photographer has disputed that it was released in that way. Unless you’ve got the actual contract between the photographer and the feds, which I doubt, but if that’s the situation then it seems like the photographer ultimately accepted Attribution 3.0 by saying “I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me.” I’d like to hear from more people familiar with the OTRS ticket. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an erroneous argument. We don't seek out evidence that a proper license or transfer of rights doesn't exist. The onus is on the user wishing to add it to Commons or Wikipedia.- MrX02:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose there's nothing too wrong with the long-standing image on this page. If the White House will clearly release an official image to the press as a public-domain work, we can use it. Otherwise, this is a repetitive discussion that doesn't need to be had. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, at this point, I want a White House lawyer to say it on the record. I suppose I'd settle for an official statement from the WMF that endorses the image as being under a free license. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) A public statement from the photographer (who is clearly the copyright holder) that this is released under a public license is sufficient as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Support official portrait. IMO it's a bad picture, but it's conventional to use official pictures in the infobox. The deletion discussion at Commons failed to get a consensus to delete. As long as the picture is available on Commons I think we should use it. In case it's deleted, we can replace it with the current Pentagon one or take the opportunity to open a new image survey altogether. (oh and by the way, if Coulter said it's OK to use this, we should try getting the Mike Pence portrait back as well, since he also took that one). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per BU Rob13. As a reminder: the Federal Government cannot "release" a photo for which they are not the copyright holder. It doesn't work that way. If the photographer/copyright holder wishes it to be in the creative commons, all they have to do is choose one of several compatible licenses.- MrX02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Philroc: Copyright has very serious legal implications and how we treat it affects the reputation of this movement. COM:L requires that "The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag." If the copyright owner has not chosen a license, then this simply cannot be done. This is not an area where I think we should WP:IAR. - MrX12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course the Federal Government can "release" a photo for which they are not the copyright holder, if the photo has been released to the Federal Government under a Creative Commons License. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a different matter entirely, and unfortunately, you have no evidence that the photographer released it to the Federal Government under any type of license, including one that is compatible with our free content mission.- MrX02:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
No evidence? The official federal government website hosting this image has a link to “copyright policy” which says: “Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, no, that's the same circular logic that you used moments ago. Again, it just doesn't work that way. - MrX03:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
You mean you think the word “licensed” refers to a license from the federal government, rather than a license from the copyright holder to the federal government? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what is legally represented by the copyright policy statement on whitehouse.gov. I do know that this administration has issued more falsehoods than I ever thought possible. My default position is incredulity. YMMV.- MrX12:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Philroc: I never used a political opinion anywhere in this discussion. I'm not aware that there is a problem with the licensing of the Obama's official portrait. If there is, you're free to pursue it at an appropriate venue.- MrX14:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per BU Rob13. It is unfortunate that this appears to be the first presidency incapable of releasing a public domain official portrait, but I suppose this is just another example of the administration's systemic incompetence. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Just because the administrators here have a hard time with copywrite, an admittedly challenging area, does not mean there is systemic incompetence. That was kind of mean. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@PackMecEng:Administration, not administrators. I was referring to the Trump administration's inability to release a public domain image. Or were you attempting to be sarcastic? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. Last thing this website needs is more politically charged editors with an agenda, make sure to go cry on Macron's page about how his photo is copyrighted, oh no I forgot nothing exists outside of Trump around here. Uggh. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it mystifying? We have a defined process for identifying compatible licenses on file information pages. If that is missing, or falsified, the file should be deleted. If you really want this photograph on Wikipedia or Commons, call/write/text/email/smoke signal Coulter and ask him to either post a license adjacent to the photo on social media or his website, or contact OTRS to explicitly declare a license. I've made similar requests of copyright holders before. It's not that hard to do.- MrX18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
During the last deletion request for this photo, I stated that I was going to DM Doug Coulter on Twitter and ask him about whether the photo was free. However, I was stopped from doing this by the closure of the request. However, now that a new discussion has started and it has been proven that Coulter has authorized the photo's use on Commons (but not necessarily under CC-BY), I am going to DM Coulter today and ask him to license the photo under CC-BY. Hopefully, my doing this will settle this debate for good. PhilrocMy contribs19:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've finally gotten to DMing Doug Coulter on Twitter. In the message, I ask him to choose a free license and offer CC-BY as a possible choice. Message contents:
Dear Mr. Coulter-
I am Philroc, a volunteer at the Wikimedia Commons, the photo repository of Wikipedia. Last May, an anonymous individual who may or may not have been you sent us an email stating that you were OK with the use of your photo of Donald Trump (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/45/PE%20Color.jpg …) on the Commons as long as it was properly attributed to you. However, you did not name a specific free license that it was OK to use the photo under, even though you were asked to do so multiple times. The Commons can't use photos unless they are under a specific free license. Now, I am going to ask you once again to give us a specific free license that we can use the photo under. One license that you can choose is the Creative Commons Attribution License, which lets anyone use your photo for any reason as long as they properly attribute you for it. You implied you were OK with this license in your email to us, so this is probably a good choice for you. If you do not want to release your photo under this license, a list of other Creative Commons licenses you can choose is at https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/licensing-examples/ …. (A couple pointers before you make your decision: Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable, meaning you can't take them back, and if you choose a license that prohibits commerical use, the photo cannot be used on the Commons, and it will be uploaded to Wikipedia's local photo repository instead.) Sincerely- Philroc
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2017
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Greetings Wiki staff and editors,
I absolutely LOVE your website and use it all the time for so many reasons.
I am requesting a new picture refresh for 45th President Donald J.Trump.
The picture does not have the American flag.
Thank you,
keep up the Amazing work!
M.G. Mmgraesser (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suggestion for infobox improvement concerning alma mater
true but the line "and made available for sale to the public" is a red-flag, looks like Dumbo's staff are making their own legislation as they go along ..--Stemoc16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
What do you think they're "making up" ? Could be mistaken, but I do not think that the GPO prints materials for the pubic for free. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
"For sale" likely means prints; they wouldn't be releasing high-definition images like that to the public if you have to pay to look at them. Codyorb (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole saga quite honestly struck me as petty and unnecessary. I might have believed the admins that wanted it taken down had they not felt compelled to call the President silly names like children in their arguments. IMHO that kind of immaturity, as reflected in a comment above, is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia even on the talk pages. If you wanna make a swipe at POTUS at least use some wit and subtlety. But, I am glad this yearlong fight is over. It is kind of ridiculous the Administration took this long to put out a basic portrait. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: See my comment immediately above. I don't trust myself to do this one right, which is why I called on JFG. Sure, "somebody" can do it, provided they don't make a fuss if JFG then does it right. My inclination is to wait. ―Mandruss☎22:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I just tried but I'll be happy to let JFG clean up after me. For one thing, the link will have to be changed when this is archived. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
My concern was whether this little thread was sufficient support for the consensus, and, if not, what else needs to be linked. ―Mandruss☎22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
All previous decisions about an image have been expressly temporary; the consensus was always "use this until the official portrait is released". There has been consensus to use this picture (no matter what it looked like) since January - actually well before. I suppose we could link to all those "...until the official portrait is released" discussions for added weight but I don't think it's necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I have updated item #1 with the latest discussion; item #24 is unnecessary. Per RfC outcome of 12 December 2016: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. We have finally reached that point. — JFGtalk10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Amen to that. It only took them ten months. And people complained when Clinton's portrait wasn't released until June of his first year in office! --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
And as for whether this one is a "decent photo" ... no comment. At least it's better than the scowling one they offered us at first. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussions like this really remind us how biased Wikipedia can get. None of these comments are even relevant. President Trump looks fantastic in the photo, and it should be displayed since it is his official portraiture. Try to stay WP:Cool when editing, no one needs to read your hate-filled remarks. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Editors are allowed to reveal their bias on an article talk page, provided they don't overdo it and cross the line into WP:NOTFORUM territory or violate WP:BLP (it is not a BLP violation to let loose a rare comment about Donald Trump's appearance, and your dissenting opinion is noted). I've probably done that three or four times in the past year, with very brief comments. And I stay cool as a cucumber when editing the article, thanks, and I don't allow my bias to affect my editing of the article or discussion of same on this page. And nobody is disputing that it should be displayed since it is his official portraiture. ―Mandruss☎01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Remove Trump's twitter comment concerning his support for protests against Obama.
The first paragraph in the "Protests" section states:
" Trump's election victory sparked protests across the United States. His opponents took to the streets to amplify their opposition to Trump's views and denounce his inflammatory statements. Trump initially said on Twitter that the protests consisted of "professional protesters, incited by the media", and were "unfair", but he later stated that he loves their passion for the country.[431][432] After Obama's re-election in 2012, Trump had tweeted "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" "
I think the last sentence is out of place and should be removed, since this section is supposed to describe the protests against Trump, not how Trump viewed Obama's presidency or whether he supported protests at that time. The only reason I can imagine for including what seems like a non-sequitur, is that the author wanted to try to demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of the president (as I recall this was the same thing mainstream news networks were trying to point out at the time). Thus as it likely exists solely to try to put the president in a bad light, I think it quite conceivably breaks Wikipedia's neutrality policies. In any case it serves no purpose in this section. Thank you!
Thus as it likely exists solely to try to put the president in a bad light, I think it quite conceivably breaks Wikipedia's neutrality policies.WP:NPOV means that we should represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If numerous RS reports all prominently point out the hypocrisy, then we can put it whether it puts the president in a bad light. However in this case, judging by the article on the protests, I think we should simply cut Trump's reaction and instead describe more of the protests and their purpose in more detail (that first sentence is pretty bad) which are much more prominent than his reaction. Or at least the quotes should be cut and his response (and perhaps hypocrisy) quickly summarized. Galobtter (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that someone should slightly crop the top of the official portrait for the infobox. It seems that there is slightly to much space above his head. Could someone with the proper credentials on here do that? --2600:8803:4000:3:2137:6F49:9BE5:C7E7 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I certainly see your point, but bear in mind that the same image is already used on 33 pages at English Wikipedia, not to mention 15 other Wikipedias. What if those editors disagree? We could create a separate cropped version, but is it worth it to trim ~10-15 pixels off the top? There is a little to be said for keeping the "official" portrait pure and unaltered. ―Mandruss☎01:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the photo should remain in the same format as it was released by the White House, at least for this and the Trump Presidency articles. Aesthetically, I don't believe it would benefit from cropping.- MrX02:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
No no nooooooo! I think we should focus more on improving the article than starting another image discussion. Anyhow, removing those pixels would change the aspect ratio to not be that off a portrait and make it too squarish. It looks fine currently. Galobtter (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, reducing the height of the full-size image by 37 pixels would give it a 0.8:1 aspect ratio, which is fairly standard for a formal portrait, at least where I come from. That's the aspect ratio for both Barack and Hillary. I don't propose that we crop it for that reason, the arguments against are weightier and we're already close enough at 0.789:1. Just sayin'. ―Mandruss☎02:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be from Trump taking up more of the image and being lower in the picture than Obama in his picture but personally I thought this picture was more squarish than Obama's. Galobtter (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. When we start letting visual perception into it, it becomes completely subjective. But the numbers don't lie: Barack is 0.801:1; since 1:1 is square, that's a little closer to square than 0.789:1. ―Mandruss☎02:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
"It seems that there is slightly to much space above his head." there wouldn't be too much difference, though I'm prefering the previous pic, on the current one he looks like a monkey. 213.197.75.54 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly framed and requires no adjustment. Certainly the space above his head is less worrisome than the space between his ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As for User:Tataral’s insertion into the lead (“subsequently the special counsel indicted Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort for conspiracy against the United States”), I disagree with that because the behavior for which Manafort was indicted had nothing to do with Trump, nor anything to do with his campaign or his administration; it’s mainly a way for Mueller to pressure Manafort into cooperation and/or spilling beans, and/or turning on Trump, none of which has happened (yet). Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be better to start a new section for discussion of the wording related to the special counsel investigation, because it isn't related to the issue raised here (which, if any, Trump appointees who should be mentioned by name in the lead section). But I do think the material about Manafort is warranted. The focus of the special counsel's investigation is potential links between Russia and Trump's campaign/possible Russian interference in the election/related matters, so the indictment of Manafort is clearly seen in that context and not as something completely unrelated to Trump, his campaign and the election. Also, Manafort wasn't merely someone who worked on the campaign, but was its head, which underlines the importance of the indictment in the context of this article. RS seem to agree that this is, so far, the most notable result of the special counsel's investigation, and that it is highly significant not only for Manafort, but also for Trump's presidency. The appointment of the special counsel has already been mentioned in the lead for a long time, so I consider this a mere update on how the investigation is proceeding. --Tataral (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I’ve inserted a header so the Manafort indictment is now a separate section at this talk page, per your suggestion. A “mere update on how the investigation is proceeding” doesn’t need to be in this lead, but is fine for the lead in the investigation article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted to the status quo until this is decided. Considering Mueller's investigation is hardly even talked about in the body (see section I created below), I don't think a mere update is enough to belong in the lead. Galobtter (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I would also assess that Manafort's indictment on prior activities is off-topic and WP:UNDUE for the lead section of Trump's biography. — JFGtalk18:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"called for" vs "asked"
@Mandruss: Regarding your comment that "called for" connotes speaking to them through the media, in the third person - is that not the case here?, thanks for educating me to this subtlety. In the event, the phrase refers to a keynote speech that Trump gave to 50+ leaders of Muslim countries worldwide, as they had been invited to Riyadh for the Arab Islamic American Summit. So he was addressing them directly, not through the media. Not sure whether it makes a difference about which verb to use. — JFGtalk22:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done Where are you seeing this? My browser finds:
Not done:The article correctly states that he received a B.S. in Econ. from Wharton. Wharton is both grad and undergrad. O3000 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Done I restored this medal, left others out. — JFG talk 05:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done while you were writing this. 
Moved it out of "First 100 days" because that section makes little sense anyway: per a previous discussion its contents should be pushed to other relevant sections. — JFG talk 05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}