Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:02, 24 March 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Vital article

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Donald Trump at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "This is the President of the United States".

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris = (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, November 13–19, 2016, January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as ], item .

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2)

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

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

4. Lead phrasing of Trump gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College and receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide, without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value (currently $3.5 billion), and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (current edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

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

7. Include "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. The lead sentence is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (link)

15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense. No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link)

Open RfCs

• #RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This is about the final phrase of a sentence in the lede -

Current Version: He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

The question is whether to replace the current wording of the final phrase. The earlier part of the sentence is a consensus version and is not under discussion here, only the final phrase. This has been extensively discussed above, and after much discussion and compromise we have come up with the following choices, which should be the basis of this RfC.

• • Option 1: The wording currently in the article: ...and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
  • Option 2: ...and the fifth to have lost the national popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 ". . .and the fifth to lose the popular vote ' SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 4: ...and the fifth after losing the national popular vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment if you can support the following new wording for the end of the election summary paragraph in the lede.

1.

Reasoning: I think "the fifth ___" is too abbreviated. "to have lost" because "to lose" implies he we president before he lost the popular vote. "losing the popular vote" is wording that many sources use even though it is not a contest to be won or lost or even part of any criteria for being president. If you do not support, please say why. Bod (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Bodhi Peace: You need to show a full sentence so that editors know the context. The ending must follow from the beginning of the sentence in tense and verb form. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural note – The anonymous poster of this RfC should have obtained local consensus in the ongoing discussions before throwing their preferred wording to RfC. — JFG 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Preference

• Option 2 Option 3 This version is much clearer and is more in line with how Reliable Sources have described the outcome. "Plurality" is kind of an obscure word and is not necessarily clear to all readers. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I prefer Option 3, I would accept Option 2, and I oppose Option 1. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I also oppose the newly added Option 4 as unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed your mind, then? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The version I previously accepted was something like "the fifth to become president after losing the popular vote". That was clear. "The fifth after losing the popular vote" is not clear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Okay, thanks Melanie. I like support those options, as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's not about the sources, it's about the grammar. "To have lost" does not match the sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, to lose the national popular vote. That matches. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I got distracted by Bodhi's wording, which as far as I know has never been proposed before. I meant to list the version which seems close to consensus in the discussion above - "the fifth to lose the popular vote." I see that parts of the proposal are getting struck and comments changed; yet another reason to abort this and start over. what we are left with may be a viable RfC despite its rocky start. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Melanie. @MelanieN: I thought we were there on our own, I don't know why Bodhi started an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - There is enough wrong with this RfC to justify an abort. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, if policy permits. I tried to reformulate this into a proper RfC comparing the existing version with the version that seemed to have reach consensus in discussion, but it would be better to start that RfC properly from the beginning. Maybe we could get Bodhi Peace to withdraw this one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my agreement with "abort". Bodhi Peace has now struck his original comment and replaced it with the fuller explanation and the three options. This leaves us with a possibly viable RfC. Other people may wish to strike or remove their comments about the earlier procedural problems if they have been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Abort costs only a few hours and results in a far cleaner end product, well worth the cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK policy permits either voluntary withdrawal or a consensus to abort. Obviously I would prefer the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup, IAR and WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's about grammar. "To have lost" is bad form in this sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, "To lose the national popular vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing grammatically wrong with "to have lost". One could argue that it's unnecessarily conplex. But my abort !vote has nothing to do with grammar, so that's moot to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2Option 1 It's been discussed before. "Lost the popular vote" is not a normal way of describing an electoral win. The president of Mexico (36%) and the prime minster of Canada (39%) received a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump, but no one says they "lost the popular vote." TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: You sure you made the right choice? Bod (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, now corrected. TFD (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Spurious argument. Neither Mexico nor Canada is a de facto two party, de jure winner-take-all system like the United States. And please no other spurious arguments about the US not being a legally mandated 2 party system. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Grammar issue with Option 2 . .to have lost is bad form. . .use plain English. . ."the fifth to lose the popular vote," much better. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural close as above abort vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Point out the national popular vote in 2016, was California vs the rest of the country. Take California out & Trump finishes about 1.5 millions votes ahead of Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Very clear and seems to agree with sources. Nothing wrong with grammar. Similar to proposed version. If @GoodDay: can provide 3 reliable sources, support mentioning CA as the sole reason for the defeat in the popular vote. Of course, either #2 or #3 is better than current. Bod (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort – Can't make sense of all this back-and-forth editing of the question by multiple people, plus random comments in the !votes. — JFG 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 (both seem equally good to me.) They seem to reflect how it's covered in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's perfectly understandable, avoids calling Trump a loser which is totally unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ist choice Option 3 or 2nd choiceOption 2, clear simple, linked to relevant article for those who don't understand the concept and 'college' system. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 - That's what happened and was reported. Objective3000 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete and Objective3000: Note above MelanieN's change of vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose either 2 or 3. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please choose either 2 or 3. Note above, MelanieN changed her vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose just one. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3, there is no requirement that people choose one only. If they don't express a preference they can be counted as support for both; if they have a first choice and a second choice they can say that. Personally my !vote would be "prefer Option 3; accept Option 2; oppose Option 1", and I should probably clarify that above. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 1 has not been excluded has it? Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If Opt2 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 2. If Opt 3 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 3. Just end it. Objective3000 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Abort per above. Rerun later... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2. Achieving "less than a plurality" in a popular vote in the United States is understood as "losing" that vote, which is how reliable sources describe such an outcome, so Option 1 is overly complicated. (It even still links to an article about people who "lost" the popular vote.) I prefer Option 2 over Option 3 because I believe 2 gives a better description. Option 3 describes him as a president who lost the vote, which sounds like losing the vote happened when he was president. Option 2 makes it clear that he took office, having previously lost the vote. At the time he became the president, his loss in the popular vote had taken place earlier; this is correct use of the perfect infinitive tense, and is grammatically correct in the sentence. DavidK93 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 – None of the options reflects how the so-called popular vote is covered in reliable sources. Usually it is not mentioned at all: out of twelve randomly picked sources that say Trump won the election (, , , , , , , , , , , ) I could find only one that makes the distinction between electoral college vote and popular vote (LA Times mentions the popular vote because Sanders brought it up), which suggests that mentioning popular vote gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. There was never a contest for popular vote, hence there can be no winners or losers. If we imply that there were two contests, then we must follow reliable sources and mention U.S. Electoral College. Majority (or plurality) of non-US readers have no clue what the heck electoral college is, which the majority (or plurality) of participants here have not addressed. All suggested options have problems, but the current one is the least worst option. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 4, with mild support for option 3, feeble, arm-twisting support for option 2, and total opposition to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Opt.3 makes it plain he lost the popular vote. That's the real issue. Won the presidency, lost the popular vote. Keep in mind, loads of people don't want any mention of him losing anything. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Mild support" means exactly that. I'd prefer the "after losing" construct, but I've already agreed to the "to lose" construct in option 3 that you prefer. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - It's perfectly fine and neutral, I find it ridiculous people are getting unsettled by it. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  The issue with option 1 is the word "plurality", which is only familiar to the small percentage of Americans with an interest in electoral politics. It is not used at all in all the other English-speaking nations of the world, which the English language Misplaced Pages is meant to cover. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. This is the English language Misplaced Pages, not the American Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - I see no compelling reason to change the long standing content. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  It's only "long standing" because every attempt to change it has been reverted, and the current version is being "held" until a consensus for a new version is reached. So this is not a convincing argument at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  That section has been brought up over and over. The current wording is what has survived. I doubt anyone is 100% happy with it, but there is something to be said for that being the longest lived. I also see no arguments strong enough to change it. Plus if everyone dislikes it at least a little you know its a good compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Is it possible you didn't actually read my comment? It has only "survived" because it was being held during the near continuous discussions over the last few weeks. Anyway, it appears from the RfC that the existing version is unlikely to survive any longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  I fully read and understand the comments you made, I just disagree with them. At the moment it looks like about 5 votes for 1-3 and 1 vote for 4. So I there is no clear answer which version will win at this point, though it does not look like a clear consensus will be formed. Especially with the number of options presented. Though whatever the outcome I'm sure it will be best for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it is the most suitable and encyclopedic version based on reasoning provided in this RFC and previous discussions.--IntelligentName (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 - or 2 or 4. Option 1's wording is confusing and misleading. Let's keep the language plain and direct. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the most neutral and encyclopedic. Laurdecl 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Options 2 and 3, although I prefer option 3. Zakawer (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, option 1 – If this trainwreck of an RfC doesn't get suspended, I support status quo Option 1, not because I like the convoluted phrasing, but because all other options emphasize "losing the popular vote" which is a non-existent contest in the US presidential electoral system, and therefore misleading readers with regard to the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. By the same token, a consensus of editors has rightly rejected material stating that Trump "won an overwhelming majority of counties", because that too is a non-existent contest. — JFG 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have no problem with "losing" the popular vote. Hundreds of high quality sources are available. It may not be technically true, but it's how it is perceived. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Concise wins here. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• option 1 There is no popular vote to win or lose. Such a description is factually incorrect and misleading. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the most neutral and accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Summoned by bot. I respond to a lot of these and I wanted to compliment the initiator of this RfC for putting forth a clear and neutral choice. I think Option 3 is worded simplest and most direct, and utilizes language that is clearest. I see no neutrality issue. The current language is not bad either, but 3 is preferable. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1, perfectly fine and encyclopedic. Don't see the need to change. RoCo 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - prefer keeping what it was before, see no need to change. Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is sufficiently neutral (avoids directly calling him a loser) while telling what needs to be told. This is really a minor detail and in the current state it's, as per multiple above, encyclopedic and factually correct. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Lost ≠ loser, linguistically. It may imply loser, but "loser," in addition to its technical meaning implies an emotional category/judgement, that none of the five options contains. Ergo, spurious argument, nay even a "strawman." Tapered (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

*Option 5 ..."to win (the election) with an electoral college majority while the losing candidate won a majority of the popular vote." Further option 1 is intellectually dishonest, grouping the 2 and 3 way anomalies (see one of my previous comments) of 1860, 1912,1992 with 1 other election when the losing candidate did win a majority of the popular vote, and another when the losing candidate outpolled the winner of the electoral vote in a de facto 2 way contest without winning the majority vote. Good grief, am I mistaken or should the options read "sixth?" @Scjessey: Tapered (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The losing candidate in 2016 did not "win a majority of the popular vote". Also, the years to which option #1 refers are 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 (not 1860, 1912, or 1992).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 Avoid anything in the lede that states losing the popular vote. The note of a loss, when the election result was a win, can confuse what is otherwise clearly stated and utterly correct by keeping option 1.Horst59 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Plurality is a more accurate description of the results, as no candidate received a majority vote. It is also more neutral. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Leave as is, I don't see what the problem is and why it needs to be changed in the first place. It's fine the way it is, it's clear, accurate, and neutral. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, just a sidenote, this is one of the most confusing RfCs I've seen in a while, the question keeps being edited, first there were three options and now there are four. It's hard to tell what's going on because of the back and forth side chats in the !votes, just saying. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Why the hell does this RfC even exist? I thought we'd come to an agreement further up the talk page? My understanding is that we had already agreed on option 3. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Some cannot accept a contrary opinion, I suggest. I am amazed that anybody would thing that "plurality" was a useful word to use. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality is indeed a correct word (among others - majority comes to mind) to use. And anyway, this is exactly what RfC is for - requesting comments from other on potentially controversial changes (or, in this case, whether there should be one or no). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality may be cromulent, but it is uncommon. "Majority" is a much more accessible word. I suggest that those supporting "plurality" wish to obfuscate rather than illuminate. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 election was the nineteenth in which someone was elected with less than a majority. Winning with less than a plurality is much more unusual, and that's why we say "plurality" instead of "majority". The word "plurality" is used in thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. Google News currently has tens of thousands of hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with it, so they can learn. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school. Moreover, Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.] (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Govt size and deregulation

I just reverted the addition of a section added by 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) on "government style and deregulation" per WP:SS, but forgot to put an edit summary explaining this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

...and your explanation is...? --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said above with "per WP:SS." It appears the entire section was copied from another article. We are trying to cut down the article and push more of the content into child articles, are we not? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I re-added a trimmed version of the info. This is a relevant topic of Trump's presidency, considering the orders and bills he has signed so far, and it is better to have a short mention of this info rather than remove it entirely. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: It would be better if you self-reverted and then proposed text here. We are trying to cut down the length of the article through the use of summary style, and throwing in bits that exist in other articles is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I added the info to Political appointments of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump the same time as I added it here. I copied some of the info from elsewhere. The full-length info is in the "Presidency of Donald Trump" article and a trimmed section is here. Most of this info did not exist on Misplaced Pages until I added it to both pages yesterday. Also, this is a very relevant part of Trump's presidency. This article would be incomplete if we did not include a section on it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: You are missing the point. You added something, which was reverted with an explanation here. It is standard practice in such instances to discuss the matter here and win consensus for what you want to put in the article, otherwise you run the risk of violating the discretionary sanctions associated with the article. I assume you understand the concepts of consensus and summary? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is what I wish to add, as a sub-section to the "Domestic policy" section:

On January 23, 2017, in a Presidential Memorandum, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze of the civilian work force in the executive branch, preventing federal agencies, except for the offices of the new presidential appointees, national security, the military and public safety, from filling vacant positions. On January 30, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every one new regulation, and to do so in such a way that the total cost of regulations does not increase. On February 24, 2017, Trump signed an order requiring all federal agencies to create task forces to look at and determine which regulations hurt the U.S. economy. Reuters described the order as "what may be the most far reaching effort to pare back U.S. red tape in recent decades."

On February 28, 2017, Trump announced he did not intend on filling many of the numerous governmental positions that were still vacant, as he considered them unnecessary.

This is a shortened form of what I added to Presidency of Donald Trump. I really don't mind making changes to the specifics of this proposal, but I do think we should mention Trump's positions and actions concerning deregulation and size of government in this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The first problem I see with this is that it is only tangentially-related to domestic policy. The hiring freeze, for example, encompasses departments dealing with matters beyond US borders as well. If other editors agree, I think the material is more suitable for the "first 100 days" section. Second, I think it is impossible to mention the stupefyingly insane "reducing regulation" executive order without including some of the opposition commentary on it. Finally, I think the sentence on filling governmental positions slightly misrepresents the source. Although Trump's extraordinarily stupid position on the matter is worth mentioning, I think his position is a little less extreme than the language you suggest. I would be interested in hearing the views of other editors before moving this any further forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this info should go into the domestic policy, as this has to do with the U.S. government structure, even if some parts of the government interact with foreign governments. I don't think this info should be in the "100 days" section because it will probably be expanded later in his presidency as he signs new laws, issues new executive orders, etc. Also, I don't see why the opposition should necessarily be mentioned for his executive order. I could be wrong, but I don't think it earned him more criticism from the Left than most of his other actions have done. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2

I think my proposal above could have been worded better, and I did find some new relevant info.

Trump has strongly favored a smaller-sized federal government and deregulation through his policies as president. In the first six weeks of his tenure as President, Trump abolished over 90 regulations. Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution on February 14, 2017 – the Act had only been successfully used once before in its history.

Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze on January 23, 2017. He signed Executive Order 13771 on January 30, 2017, which directed federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every one new regulation, and to do so in such a way that the total cost of regulations does not increase. On February 24, 2017, Trump signed an order requiring all federal agencies to create task forces to look at and determine which regulations hurt the U.S. economy, something which Reuters described as "what may be the most far reaching effort to pare back U.S. red tape in recent decades."

I guess this section could be in the "100 days" section if it is more appropriate there, but I think it would preferrably go into the "Domestic policy" section. This deregulation/government size section would be updated through his presidency. Once again, I don't really care about the specifics about this proposal. I think it is relevant to add, however. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that saying trump has favored smaller government is an overstatement. Time will tell. The final sentence is incorrectly worded, it is a statement by two reporters in a signed article, not necessarily the opinion of Reuters. The hiring freeze and the review of regulations should be mentioned of course. but it seems to be more in line with his populist style than any policy shift. (One populist politician for example publicly auctioned off all government limos then privately bought new ones.) TFD (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2, condensed

Proposal #2.3 (responding to comments by Scjessey and Casprings)

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation issued. The order has been described as populist theater and condemned as "just plain dumb". On February 24, 2017, he ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.

1,024 characters -> 684 777. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC) 03:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Better, but I'm concerned none of these proposals mention criticism/opposition to these policies, which is understandably strident. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do not mention any opposition viewpoints and possiable negatives.Casprings (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the condensed proposal #2. Thank you Dervorguilla for drafting it. Scjessey, I see no reason to include opposition to Trump's deregulation policies. Has there been more opposition to these policies than his other policies? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it might be hard to spot the near-continuous condemnation if you never watch TV or open a newspaper! Just this morning, Tom Philpott has an article about the deregulation of drinking water, for example. The are also plenty of articles talking about how stupid his deregulation rule is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I do read the news and watch TV to the point that I'm a news junkie. What I'm saying is that I don't see why criticism of Trump's deregulation policies is notable enough to include in this section. The Left is criticizing Trump on pretty much everything. I have to admit (respectfully and in good faith), however, your calling Trump's policies "stupid" and etc. several times in this section makes me worry about your POV on this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose proposal #2.3. What makes this opinion piece, probably picked out from among numerous opinion articles, worthy or appropriate to include here? If criticism of Trump's deregulation orders is really do notable as to include here, there must be at least some reputable journalistic article somewhere reporting about that criticism. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2 -- without the added criticism info -- is the best option by far. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Shortly after you posted, TIME came out with a cover story on "Trump's deregulation orders" and the most newsworthy criticisms thereof. See Proposal #2.4. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Everyone has their own point of view, but the view that Trump's deregulation executive order is "stupid" is near universal, with only the most extreme "small government" types supporting it. Reliable sources all say it is a dumb idea. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Of course everyone has their own POV -- I do as well. What matters is that it does not affect our editing. The view that Trump's deregulation policy is "stupid" is NOT "near universal." And more than just extremists support his order. At least most of the GOP, other conservatives, and libertarians likely support the orders. It is false to say that all "reliable sources" (whatever that means) call them dumb. We should cite nonpartisian sources describing the criticism of the orders rather than the opinion pieces themselves. The opinion articles are not RS. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2.4

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. On February 24, 2017, he ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.

Defenders of administrative agencies have expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

884 characters. Graf 3 attempts to paraphrase the most relevant passage in the new TIME cover story, "Trump's War on Washington". (Can't say I agree with the author's analysis, but it does accurately summarize what the reputable mainstream opposition is saying.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work, but there still needs to be more opposition for neutrality. See proposal #3 below. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. In a letter signed by 137 organizations, interest groups warned Trump that Americans would "be exposed to more health, safety, environmental and financial dangers." Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. The head of the GAO criticized the move, saying past hiring freezes "haven't proven to be effective in reducing costs and cause some problems if they're in effect for a long period of time." A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. The order was described as "arbitrary" and "not implementable" by Harvard law professor Jody Freeman. On February 24, 2017, he ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.

Defenders of administrative agencies have expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

It's a little longer, but it addresses the neutrality concerns I have. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. We don't need a criticism for every action Trump makes -- this proposal overemphasizes the criticisms to a large degree. I don't mind adding those criticisms to the articles of the individual orders, but it is UNDUE to include them all here. I support Proposal #2.4, as it includes mention of the criticism of the orders without including opinion articles or violating WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The criticism is appropriate weight, and not at all an overemphasis. The criticism I added was from the head of the GAO (unimpeachable source) and a scholarly source, both quoted themselves by a reliable source. Your choice is to have the criticism, or not have the section at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's also the TIME source. I'm not disputing the reliability of the sources (even though a conservative academic might say something entirely different than Jody Freeman -- you linked to the wrong person). But, yes, three different criticisms is undue weight for such a short section. If we have so many criticisms, then we should list at least one RS in support of the orders. Also, you said: "Your choice is to have the criticism, or not have the section at all". We have three or four different proposals that I support already listed here. If none of the other proposals if adequate enough for you, or if one criticism by TIME is too little for you, then that is unfortunate. I prefer proposal #2, but I am willing to accept the TIME criticism or the GAO criticism. Three is way too much. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but nobody else but you has weighed in on my proposal. You will need to wait a bit. I've actually added hardly any criticism, and I've stuck with unimpeachable sources. And we don't need to list supporters of Trump's orders because that would be a false balance (the kind of "balance" preferred by Fox News). Thanks for the correction though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the fourth criticism in the first paragraph. I'm sorry, but that is way too much criticism to pass WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Also, your statement that you've "actually added hardly any criticism" is false. I just checked and literally half of your proposed text is criticism. That is not "hardly any" criticism. Also, adding a RS in support of Trump's policy would not be "false balance" as you claim. Roughly half the country supports Trump's policy. However, that is beside the point. I don't want to add unnecessary commentary or opinions from either side of the aisle. One dissenting opinion is OK, but four is definately UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: NPOV policy -- in particular, WP:UNDUE -- is clarified at WP:BALASP. Positive/negative treament in the article should be proportional to positive/negative treatment in the total body of published reputable sources on the subject.

India leads the world in terms of newspaper circulation, so you may want to consider adding material from (for instance) The Times of India, which has a more cosmopolitan perspective than some US newspapers. See, for example, Swapan Dasgupta, "The Trumping of Neutrality: Trump's Belief that the Media Has Ganged Up on Him Isn't Entirely Misplaced", February 21, 2017.

Whenever you add something positive to this article, you can expect something negative to be added per BALASP. You can then edit as necessary for accuracy and fairness. Even better, add some negative material yourself! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Originally, I didn't want any praise or criticism in this section -- only the facts. However, as Scjessey wanted the section to include criticism, I am OK with adding some critical views. The GAO and TIME sources are OK, IMO. However, having four different criticisms is way too much and probably not proportional to the actual level of criticism from RS sources (also, about half of the characters of the proposals are criticisms). Personally, I would rather remove two criticisms than add praise (the proposals for this section are getting a bit lengthy anyway -- from ~700 to ~1,500 characters). --1990'sguy (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you are hung up on the number of criticisms. Virtually every proposal made by the Trump administration has attracted significant criticism that has received oodles of coverage in reliable sources. You will just have to face up to the fact that almost everything Trump has done is unpopular, and so any text on his presidency is likely to include a fair amount of criticism. And it's simply not true that "half the country" supports Trump's policies. It's not even half the people who voted, let alone half the people that could've voted, and a great number of those are already expressing "buyer's remorse" now that Trump has appointed fully paid up members of the swamp in every corner of his administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Of course I know Trump is unpopular, at least with the mainstream media, and I know that he had received much criticism from the Left on pretty much everything (I already stated this at least once further up). I'm not sure if the "buyer's remorse" thing is accurate--I've seen reliable, mainstream sources stating that his blue-collar base is literally unfazed by the actions/negative news. But this is beside the point. Just because Trump has received much criticism from the press and the Left does not mean that literally half of the proposed info should be criticism. Deregulation is clearly not the most criticized aspect of Trump's presidency.

Also, no other section in the "Presidency" section of the article is comprised of 50% criticism--not even close (with the sole possible exception of the "Immigration order" section). It would be UNDUE to include such a disproportionate amount of criticism in this section when a number of criticisms listed in other sections do not even come close (even though Trump has received just as much if not more criticism in those other sections). For consistency, we should devote at least 67-75% of the text to describing what Trump has done rather than criticism of what he has done. Not 50%. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not just "the left" and the media criticizing Trump. That's typical "right wing echo chamber" thinking. There are also people on the right, including lawmakers, critical of Trump's actions. And then there are legal scholars, scholars in economics, and foreign leaders. There are umpteen stories (not to mention social media postings) of Trump voters angry at what the president is doing, so the "buyer's remorse" thing is real. And I'm not asking for "50% criticism" at all. I'm asking for some criticism with appropriate weight. Really, your objections don't seem to be based on reality. Try to look outside your own media bubble, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes some right-of-center people are criticizing Trump, but are they criticizing him on deregulation? Of course, they are on other issues like immigration and trade, but deregulation? Even if Trump received criticism from the Right on deregulation, mentioning all this criticism would be UNDUE because no other section in this article devotes so much space for criticisms of Trump and/or his policies (and Trump has received much more criticism concerning those other policies than deregulation), as I've pointed out. You may not be asking for 50% criticism, but 50% criticism as you are effectively proposing is undue weight, considering this context. Also, I must point out, you originally asked me to self-revert because we were trying to trim the article length. I do think such a section that I am proposing is important to Trump's presidency and thus should be included, but your proposals are getting lengthy (please compare the condensed proposal #2 with #3.1). I think we should implement the condensed proposal #2 (even though I can accept one or two of the criticisms if necessary), and then add the rest (including the other criticisms) to Presidency of Donald Trump. That way, the section here can be a summary of Trump's presidency. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Deregulation in general is never criticized by the right, but certain examples are indeed being criticized. You cannot compare the level of criticism from one section to the next because they are unrelated. The section on the presidency is bound to have a lot more criticism because there's more to criticize! Finally, shoving all criticism off to the sub article turns it into a POV fork instead of a summary style article. This article must summarize that article. Anyway, I support #3.1, and it appears others do as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All the sections I compared were within the "Presidency" section. It really would look bad if we add a section with all the criticism when even more controversial issues do not have as much listed criticism. Also, the proposal that you support is about as long as the section in Presidency of Donald Trump. The section here wouldn't be much of a summary. For those reasons, I support the condensed #2. I see that more editors support #3.1, so I will not fight it anymore. It's just a waste of my time. However, I still believe #3.1 is not a good choice. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: By the way, concerning Trump's popularity and "buyers remorse" among Republicans, see this BBC article. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #3.1

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. He became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office told a House committee that hiring freezes have not proven to be effective in reducing costs. Unlike some past freezes, however, the current freeze bars agencies from adding contractors to make up for employees leaving.

A week later Trump signed Executive Order 13771, directing administrative agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. Harvard Law professor Jody Freeman said that the order was not implementable and would do no more than slow the regulatory process, because it was written so as to did not block rules required by statute. Nearly 140 interest groups wrote Trump a letter saying that US citizens did not vote to be exposed to more health, safety, environmental and financial dangers.

On February 24, 2017, Trump ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy. Agency defenders have expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

1,359 characters -> 1,531. (Adds balancing information from article about GAO comment; expands Freeman's quote for clarity.) -> 1,488. (Trim longest sentence, no substantive change in meaning; full ref quote given in citation.) Tag last sentence in graf 3 for apparent inconsistency with last sentence in graf 4 and for question of undue weight. Are the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, National Center for Transgender Equality, or National LGBTQ Task Force recognized as authorities on whether Trump voters are willing to "be exposed to more dangers" in return for, say, more money or personal freedom? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC) 23:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 09:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like the best and clearest of the bunch. Neutrality 19:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not as complete as I would like, but I can support it in the interests of getting some sort of agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop writing these paragraphs

Everything that this man does as president CANNOT be included in his BLP. Not even a paragraph. This page is WP:NOTNEWS. Put these proposed edits on the presidency page, not here. This page is his BLP. That means his life, not his presidency. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And his presidency is somehow not part of his life? Add a Template:main article to the section that concerns his presidency and link the relevant article, while still It's ok to keep summary coverage of it in there. That would be standard, as can be seen on Obama's or Bush's pages, which both have substantial sections on their presidency. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. We should have a short summary of Trump's policies with a more detailed version at Presidency of Donald Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's some pertinent language from WP:NOTNEWS.

"Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events."

If Trump prevails in his undertaking to destroy much of the modern administrative state, this in itself will make him one of the more enduringly notable people in recent American history. Proposal #3.1 is meant as a description of the first actions Trump has taken toward implementing this preeminently noteworthy project. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree !!! - Start trimming and stop duping and dumping material that goes elsewhere and WP:OFFTOPIC for a biography. Really, quoting a random Harvard professor or columnist from Independant or Vox is neither a mainstream consensus nor of particular significance deserving a mention, much less a significant event in the life of Trump which is the topic of this article. Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett:, yes, definitely WP:OFFTOPIC, especially as he's been in office for less than 2 months. Imagine the bloat that's yet to come if this keeps up. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett and SW3 5DL: I trust you're not arguing that a Time cover story is undeserving of mention? --Dervorguilla (talk)

Yeah, this is ridiculous. WP:OFFTOPIC refers to stuff not/loosely relevant, and this material is absolutely relevant. Editors need to stop wikilawyering to try to prevent negative stuff from being in the article. If you are going to do it, at least put in a better effort LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Please stop attacking. Your comments are almost always disruptive, filled as they are with your obvious bias. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Er... whatever, dude. It seems like you are the one doing all the attacking here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop the drama, please. On a more serious tone, I agree with Scjessey that the material discussed is not off topic. However, coverage of it should not be too extensive (otherwise, why have a specific page about his presidency?). I'll repeat, summary coverage should be present in this article - on grounds of common sense and because that's what's done on other similar articles. That coverage can (and I expect it will) change with time, depending on how the presidency unfolds. So we should include what we know as of now and expect to change it over the course of the following 4 years. As for the concern of 'negative stuff' being wikilawyered out of the article, I think that despite the outrage Trump generates, we should (our personal opinions of the man notwithstanding) strive to cover it in a neutral way - or at least, as neutral as how we find it in the majority of reliable sources. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Section length is a legitimate concern and policy requires that we address such concerns through a process of compromise. Accordingly, I've trimmed the longest sentence by seven words, and I'm noting for the record the participating editors' general understanding that the section may be gradually shortened over the next few months. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla -- refer to WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:BLP to see if material should go here, and then see if it is not already covered and significant enough to toss out other bits to fit it in. If it is not biographical, then see if another of the circa 200 Trump articles are better suited. A prominent magazine seems more likely speaking about Presidency of Donald Trump or Protests against Donald Trump than life of Donald Trump the man. But if the significance is just about being on cover prominently, go by magazine cover, that seems more a list of article, and you could start a list of Man of the year and such coverage. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thank you for the demonstration of good negotiation skills!

The most restrictive language appears in WP:BLPSELFPUB: The material should "not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject".

WP:OFFTOPIC is an explanatory supplement to MOS, not a guideline. But it does suggest that material which is "only loosely relevant" to the topic be moved elsewhere so that readers who aren't interested won't be distracted by it.

Here are the proposed sentences that describe significant and interesting events directly related to Trump:

"He became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing administrative agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue."

The other proposed passages are more directly related to claims about Trump's policies thsn to Trump himself. They are nonetheless more relevant to Trump than is the material about his "licensing his name to son-in-law Jared Kushner's fifty-story Trump Bay Street, a Jersey City luxury development that has raised $50 million of its $200 million capitalization largely from wealthy Chinese nationals who, after making an initial down payment of $500,000 in concert with the government's expedited EB-5 visa program, can usually obtain United States permanent residency for themselves and their families after two years. Trump is a partner with Kushner Properties only in name licensing and not in the building's financing." I'd be happy to remove those 560 characters before adding the proposed (1,488-character) passage.

The Time cover illustration shows him busy posting anti-bureaucracy tweets; it portrays such events as being more than an insignificant or uninteresting part of his life. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to WP:BLPSELFPUB - I'm not sure that would apply here. Sure, the tweets are self-published. However, they are covered by (a relatively large number) of RS whose scope does include Trump's politics - which, already agreed, are a part of his life. So the issue that remains is not whether we should include comments about Trump's policy and his tweeting, but how much we should cover. Currently, the above 1488-character paragraph has 61 words (disregard, I though of the short paragraph he posted, didn't even count number of characters). In my opinion, that's enough. Furthermore, it's treated in a neutral way without either criticizing or (worse!) praising what's done. So I think the the current proposal is good. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: @1990'sguy: I've deleted the 83-word graf about the Kushner development. Maybe you could go ahead and add Proposal #3.1 (218-word version) with the understanding that it will (most likely) be gradually but radically shortened over the next few months (perhaps to as few as 61 words) as events unfold? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 02:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the possible confusion. I think that if we manage to reduce it to maybe 100-150 words then it might really meet all criteria we've been discussing. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To reduce text length: "did not vote to be exposed to more health, safety, environmental and financial dangers." -> "did not vote to be exposed to more dangers." (44 characters, 5 words)
"Agency defenders have expressed opposition" -> "Agency defenders expressed opposition" (5 characters, 1 word). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just "danger" alone seems rather vague. Boomer Vial 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"did not vote to be exposed to dangers arising from deregulation."? (now only 25 characters and 3 words less). That is what the source says: (quote for demonstration purposes) "Environmentalists, unions and consumer watchdogs have warned of the dangers of slashing regulations, which they claim include pollution-induced disease, contaminated food, unsafe workplaces and shoddy financial practices." - that quote could be put in the ref (i.e. |quotation=...) (actually no it's too long, will add too much to article size) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) edited 02:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Looking for a few more editors to support the changes. Boomer Vial 23:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – This is political discourse about current issues, undue for the biography, rather should go to Political positions of Donald Trump or Economic policy of Donald Trump. — JFG 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@69.165.196.103 and Boomer Vial: I support, but see my question below as to whether the 137 signatories to the letter are widely held to be authorities on the subject of Republican voters. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion

@JFG: Proposal #2.4 is about as neutral as it gets - it has 0 controversy. However, it has been rejected on the grounds that not covering the controversy wouldn't be a complete and accurate coverage of the topic of Trump's Presidency, even if we try to make it as brief as possible. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with any proposal, as long as it goes into the appropriate article, which in my opinion is not the biography. — JFG 04:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked the list of "nearly 140 interest groups" who wrote the letter to Trump. They include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Family Equality Council, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National LGBTQ Task Force, and Trevor Project. Are these interest groups (or, indeed, the other 131) widely held to be authorities on such matters as whether Trump voters did indeed register their willingness to be "exposed to more dangers" -- in return for, say, more jobs or personal freedom? (The Hegelian dialectic might come in handy here.) I propose that we just omit the material and keep the other, more authoritative analyses by recognized experts at Harvard and Yale Law Schools. This would bring us down to 191 words, with no loss of significant information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I support deleting that info. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So the current proposal is, after all removals (yours included), (for clarity):

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. He became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office told a House committee that hiring freezes have not proven to be effective in reducing costs. Unlike some past freezes, however, the current freeze bars agencies from adding contractors to make up for employees leaving.

A week later Trump signed Executive Order 13771, directing administrative agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. Harvard Law professor Jody Freeman said that the order would do no more than slow the regulatory process, because it did not block rules required by statute.

On February 24, 2017, Trump ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy. Agency defenders expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

Which is 191 words and 1321 characters. I'm in favour of that proposal, but let's see if anybody has more propositions or suggested removals. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding 8 links. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CON, I suggest that we go ahead and add the above text with the general understanding that (1) editors will subsequently add a (reasonably noncontentious) sentence about some legitimate authority’s claim that Trump's actions will expose Americans to more risk; and (2) the section length will gradually increase or decrease over the next few months as the prominence of particular claims about his actions increases or decreases. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I support this as well. Boomer Vial 04:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I can live with this proposal. At least one criticism was removed, making the text more acceptable and have less potential POV. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is missing some key criticism that is giving Trump a pass for heavily criticized actions; however, it is better than nothing and I won't object. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, we have yet to find a way to tell that that satisfies all involved - I understand their point that this might, despite all the fuss, be only be looked at as a minor point of Trump's presidency in 4 year's time. Though, again, Rome wasn't built in one day and we should take the time to do this properly now, with the potential to change if we see with time that it's not really that important. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've added the text to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

This edit removed material with the edit summary "c/e redundant". This strikes me as a highly disruptive edit, because the material was not redundant. Here is what was removed (footnotes omitted):

Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the above content that is struck out. This is an article about Donald Trump, not Kushner, Trump's children, or his sister. Boomer Vial 04:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Shall we remove all mention of all other family members? This is a section about "family". In any event, the person who deleted this material did not suggest we should not mention Kushner; he said this material is "redundant", which it isn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If the material is redundant as you claimed, User:SW3 5DL, would you please say where you think it is already located?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The sister is mentioned further up in the article with a link. His sons are already linked. Jared Kushner, (who has his own page), is already mentioned as Ivanka's husband in 'religion.' The 'star-studded' reception is for Vanity Fair, not WP. We cannot keep mentioning the same thing over and over. It makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And where he grew up is already mentioned in the lede. We get that he lived in Jamaica Estates, Queens. With his parents. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, right now, nothing in the article says that the sons are now running the company, right? Nothing right now in the article says the sister is a US Circuit Court Judge, one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, right? Nothing in the article right now says the son-in-law is now a senior advisor in the White House, right? Nothing in the article right now says he lived in Jamaica Estates before going to military school, right? And nothing in the article right now suggests why this particular wedding reception is notable, right? Attendees included Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Simon Cowell, Regis Philbin, Kelly Ripa, Star Jones and Barbara Walters. So don't tell me "redundant". Give an actual reason, please, or restore the information. Even if all of this info were in the lead (none of it is), the lead is not supposed to contain info that's not in the article body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A minor point compared to the others, but this claim is false too: Jamaica Estates is not the same as Jamaica. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL: But other information that you removed is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, e.g.: "His daughter Ivanka's husband Jared Kushner is serving as a full-time senior advisor in the White House." Please stop making misleading claim about your edits. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no Misplaced Pages policy forbidding mention of persons who are not identical with the article subject, so I'm not sure about the basis for the "This is an article about Donald Trump" argument. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed this is a highly misleading edit summary and a clear violation of WP:SUMMARYNO.

As for the content question: In each case, the brief remark about the family member provides context that is clearly relevant in this article - e.g. that the president's son-in-law is senior advisor in the White House. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is redundant. Mary Anne Trump is mentioned in the early life section. Her link takes you to the main article that discusses her. This is Trump's article, not his sisters. HIs sons are already linked and their names link to their articles which talk about them running the family business. It does not need to be here. We do not need tabloid hyperbole for "star-studded," and Jared Kushner is already mentioned in the 'religion' section with his name linked to his article. I'll mention in that section that Kushner works in the White House, but the rest has to go. But more importantly, the inappropriate response by Anythingyouwant, and your comments, are very disturbing and disruptive to this page. And your revert is also disruptive. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, because you are not properly indenting your comments, it is impossible to know whether you are accusing me of a disruptive revert or accusing someone else of a disruptive revert. I have requested before that you please indent to indicate who you are speaking to. See WP:Talk. That said, I find very strange your notion that we should never say in this BLP anything about anyone (or anything) that is contained in that other person's (or thing's) Misplaced Pages article. You really want to stick with that notion? Because it would imply deleting a heck of a lot more of the present BLP. And why have you now inserted Kushner's White House role a second time, I thought you dislike redundancy. And why have you now pipe-linked Jamaica, Queens to "Jamaica Estates" even though there is a separate article about Jamaica Estates? I object to both of those odd edits by you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The second or third opening paragraph states something like "Most of Trump's statements are false or controversial". This is an obvious POV edit and needs to be removed. It degrades practically the entire page and stamps a big biased label on President Trump's statements and does not infer what or any statements he made are false. Further this does not belong in the opening paragraphs of the article.Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – First of all, the "controversial or false" wording is qualified by "many statements" not "most statements", and it is restricted to the context of the presidential campaign. Second, the issue has been debated at length and settled by RfC, see links above in #Current consensus item 7. Obviously, consensus can change but I would advise that you read the prior extensive discussions before suggesting a change based on new developments. — JFG 10:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please restore paragraph

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.

Anythingyouwant can come by and remove something and I can't re-add it according to the sanctions? I have other things to do and I cannot engage in an argument here. His edit summary was:

"remove paragraph because Trump has not had any formal role in Trump Entertainment Resorts since 2011 or earlier. See http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052970203579804576285341283000706"

That Barrons source dated 2011 says Trump reduced his stake at the bankruptcy from 24% to 5% and that he had no formal role. He owned "less than $3 million" dollars of the casino and his name was on it. In what world is a $3 million dollar stake not significant?

Also, another sentence not supported by Anythingyouwant's source was removed at the same time. Kindly restore that paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but that statement seems to reflect the source. If the source says Trump had "no formal role", then yes removing it is justified - otherwise it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to non-significant things. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IP69. If Trump no longer had any formal role in the company, then details about the company's decisions are undue weight here. We could fill Warren Buffett's article with all the decisions made by companies in which he owns a minority of shares, but that would be undue weight too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Notably, Trump Taj Mahal had ample notice of these deficiencies as many of the violations from 2012 and 2010 were discovered in previous examinations." It looks like Treasury didn't think the pre-2010 violations were particularly noteworthy. Also, the keyword "Donald" doesn't appear in its news release. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned news release makes absolutely no mention (at all) of Donald Trump. Would close this as WP:OFFTOPIC ("contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.") but I'll leave that to somebody else. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Making sure stuff in the lead is also covered later

Per WP:Lead, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article....make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." Does anyone object if we comply with this guideline by making sure that facts stated in the lead are added to the rest of the article if they have not already been added? For example, that Trump grew up at Jamaica Estates? Also, I think the lead is currently incorrect to say that he was born in Jamaica Estates.17:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk)

I went ahead and fixed this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Keep in mind that "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text", per WP:LEAD. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing repetition re. Kushner

This BLP currently says twice that Kushner is serving as a senior advisor in the White House. It's in the last paragraph of the "Religious views" subsection, and also the last paragraph of the "family" subsection. I plan to remove it from the former, because it has nothing to do with religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it makes more sense in the family section. — JFG 07:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I edited so it's only in the "family" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla and JFG: I disagree. The family section is for Trump's immediate family. The family he created. Not his son-in-law, who is already mentioned in the religion section. The children already have their names linked so info on Jared, who, btw, has his own article and his name is linked in this one in the religion section, which is enough. Also, Anythingyouwant is making multiple edits over the last 48 hours, at a manic rate, some of which should have consensus. The grammar goes wanting as well, in some of the more florid sentences such as, "Later that year, she gave birth to their son Barron, who became fluent in Slovene and English." Was his ability to speak Slovene and English the result of the birth? And what kid born in America to an English speaking family won't learn English? He then runs over to the talk page to get a 'consensus' and if his edits are reverted he seems to have a violent reaction. He flew into a rage the other night when I changed something back in the family section. This seems more disruptive to me. Especially the number of edits. For example, from 16 March at 16:04 to 17 March 03:49, he made 60 edits. A lot of those edits, including his multiple subsequent ones, are poorly written. He's adding junk that will only get taken out when the article finally gets to GA status. In other words, he's making work. And I don't like the photos being moved. Photos being staggered help prevent walls of text. This is disruption, it's not editing. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the family section to rephrase the activities of Trump's adult children; this puts Jared Kushner's role in context with Ivanka's move to Washington. He had really nothing to do in the religion section. Regarding the rest of your comments, I would encourage you to AGF and improve the grammar where you see fit; collaborative editing is the beauty of Misplaced Pages. — JFG 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is important to note in the religion section that one of his children converted to Judaism. And since he's already mentioned there, his name is linked to his own article, he doesn't need to be anyplace else. And Ivanka's move to Washington is in her article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one has sought to remove this from the religion section: "Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said in 2015: 'I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that it wasn't in the plan but I am very glad it happened.'" Also, User:SW3 5DL, do not change your comment after someone else has already replied to it, without indicating the change (see WP:Talk). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Some definitions from Black's Law Dictionary:

immediate family. 1. A person’s parents, spouse, children, and siblings. 2. A person’s parents, spouse, children, and siblings, as well as those of the person’s spouse.

extended family. The immediate family together with the collateral relatives who make up a clan...

collateral. 2. ... Of, relating to, or involving a person who is related by blood but is neither an ancestor nor a descendant.

So you're right. Kushner is not one of Trump's (immediate or extended) family members. It would be formally correct to remove his name from the 'Family' section, thus:

... daughter Ivanka ... moved with her husband to Washington when he took a position as a senior advisor in the White House.

One can argue, however, that Kushner's multiple relationships to Trump make him more than a minor aspect of Trump's life and that he's been so treated by the press. I think it's OK to mention his name twice (but maybe no more than twice) in the article as a whole. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Peale books in "Religious views"

Regarding the recent edits I have made to the "Ancestry" section, I moved the section on the Trump family's religious background from the "Ancestry" to the "Religious views" section, as per Anythingyouwant's note on my talk page, as it seems the most logical. Anythingyouwant suggested that I should leave his works out altogether; however, I have kept the books that Peale wrote as it helps establish his notability (connections were made in the Washington Post article between Peale's The Art of Living and Trump's The Art of the Deal, but I decided to keep those out as it seemed to be the author's speculation). What does the Misplaced Pages community think of this? HelgaStick (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@HelgaStick: I'm agnostic on the question of whether to mention the books in the article body, but I'd definitely support including them in a reference quote. As for this information:

The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, a bestselling author and motivational speaker, and a mentor for Trump.

it belongs in § Religious views, not § Family. And do remember that the marriage fell apart eleven years later; perhaps Peale wasn't a particularly motivational speaker after all (at least not on that occasion)?? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind having Peale mentioned in both the family and religion sections. He performed a marriage ceremony, and he also was a spiritual guide. Just like Kushner is mentioned in both. Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with mentioning Peale's name twice. But there's no need to mention twice that he's a bestselling author or a motivational speaker. He's not even mentioned once in the article about Ivana. (And the marriage ceremony was documentably more important to her life than to Donald's in that she wouldn't be called "Ivana Trump" were it not for that ceremony.) Kushner can in any case be mentioned twice per WP:BALASP, judging from the volume of attention the press has given him. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the family section now merely says, "The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, a famous speaker and a mentor for Trump." Hopefully this writ will be satisfactory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions Peale four times and Peale's works twice. We're not trying to plug his books but it could perhaps appear that way to some reasonable readers.

I propose editing "The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, a famous speaker and a mentor for Trump." to read "The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale." Reference could be moved to the immediately following section. No net loss of information to the article as a whole.

But let's wait till tomorrow to decide. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply remove the names of Peale's books, because we don't even name most of Trump's own books (and I don't see reliable sources placing much significance in the similarity between the titles Art of the Deal and Art of Living).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I note that User:SW3 5DL has just unilaterally expanded the Peale material despite consensus, without discussion, and regardless of our objections that it was already too long. I don't really have any desire to edit an article in such an uncollaborative manner, but I don't see what will put a stop to that either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla:, I thought the same thing about Norman Vincent Peale. But early today, I researched this and it turns out Norman Vincent Peale had a significant impact on Donald Trump's life. It turns out, Peale's book, The Power of Positive Thinking, had been a huge success when it came out in the 1950s. He was pastor at Marble Collegiate Church and started drawing hundreds of people to his sermons. Donald Trump's parents were among them. Trump said he was instantly taken by Peale's message and said he could have listened to his for hours. Other than his father, Peale is the only other mentor Trump has identified. All through the campaign, it turns out, Trump mentioned Peale many times and often attributed his success to the power of positive thinking. It seems Peale and his philosophy had quite the impact on Trump and it seems this bears mentioning as Trump seems to have internalized this belief like a religion. Peale didn't just talk about positive thinking, his thesis was that when applied to business, or really anything, you find success. I can see, after reading so much about this, where this philosophy would appeal to Trump. I removed mention of his other books because it was really only the Power of Positive Thinking that Trump talked about. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As for mentors...Many have pointed out it was Peale with a mixture of Roy Cohn. Buster Seven Talk 07:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: He has denied Roy Cohn was a mentor. He only names his father and Norman Vincent Peale as mentors. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you previde sources for the "only Peale and my Dad" claim? The Daily Beast supports the well-known claim; Cohn..."representing the Trump family real estate business in a racial discrimination suit and became a mentor to young Donald." Trumps tweet about this tapping mentions "McCarthyism" which Cohn helped in making what it was. Maybe Trump doesn't want to call him a mentor but he was certainly an early influence that is well documented. He was involved with the Trump family. It has been reported that Cohn used his influence with then President Reagan to get Donald’s sister, Maryann Trump Barry appointed to the federal bench. Read this article and tell me that for years Cohn didn't teach Donald some of the tricks of the trade. As the NYT article says, "Mr Cohn’s influence on Mr Trump is unmistakable." Buster Seven Talk 02:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Germany

What about we include some of the Donald Trump opinion on Germany?

• Claiming that he had a great time with Angela Merkel, even though they "fake news" claimed different; just to mention in the same sentence: Germany owes America money.
• Germany is not secure anymore, because of refugees.

I mean, all the bullshit he is producing about Germany - you can argue that it's the second most hated country after Mexico - shouldn't we include it into the article? (PS! Personal question: is that how you Americans think of us Germans in general, or is it just Donald Elected Trump?)--Rævhuld (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything about what happened with Merkel belongs in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's not (yet) of encyclopedic relevance, I think. The rest is, I'm afraid, not really for here--this isn't a forum. Hit Volunteer Marek or Tiptoethrutheminefield up on Facebook and they'll tell you all about it. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

On Facebook? But yeah, it's not encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Many of the statements that he made in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

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.

This sentence needs to be removed as it is clearly biased. Looks like it has been written by a leftie and it is biased. Norum 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have no objection to this edit by User:SW3 5DL, except for the footnote. It would be best to have consistent practice in the lead regarding footnotes, and that practice has so far been to omit them. Even where we do include footnotes, a bare URL is unusual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's there to keep you from having another violent reaction to a change in one of your edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If you carefully read my previous comment at the top of this section, I think you will be hard-pressed to find any violent reaction to anything. Same for my other comments here. Please get rid of the footnote, or move it out of the lead. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of footnotes, User:SW3 5DL, is there some reason why you changed "{{sfn|Kranish|Fisher|2017|p=}} to "<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x2jUDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 |title=Trump Revealed: The Definitive Biography of the 45th President |first1=Michael |last1=Kranish |first2=Marc |last2=Fisher |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=2017 |isbn=978-1-5011-5652-6 |accessdate=January 21, 2017 |page=45 |quote=Trump graduated from NYMA in May of 1964}}</ref>"? If not, I propose to change it back, along with deleting the footnote from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, editors who are unwilling to respond to criticisms of their edits ought not to be editing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Born and raised

Donald Trump was born and raised in Queens, New York City, New York, according to his birth certificate. "Place of Birth: Queens, New York City." Apparently, New York, as do other eastern states, uses the borough systems. Queens is one of the five boroughs of New York. A borough is the lowest administrative level in that state. It was colonized by the English who used the English convention of naming, but later when jurisdictions were being sorted, the borough was lowest level, and everything else became a neighborhood. It no longer followed the English convention of neighborhood, then parish or village, then county, then country. i.e. If you were born in Chapel Row, your birth certificate would say, Chapel Row, Bucklebury, Berhshire, England. But not in New York. So to keep on about the neighborhood is not correct. If anything, it's just a postal zone. Also, he never lived in Jamaica. Nor was he born in Jamaica. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center is actually in the Richmond Hill neighborhood. Trump always lived in Jamaica Estates, from his birth. His parents address on the birth certificate indicates this. He lived in two houses there. The first on 85-15 Warham Road. The larger house, his father built around the corner, also in Jamaica Estates. And more importantly, he always identified as being from Queens, which one would expect from anyone from that area. After that, if someone asked him, "What neighborhood?" He would answer, Jamaica Estates. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, in the lede was a sentence that claimed he lived in Jamaica Estates until he went to boarding school. But he didn't leave home for good. He was only away at school, so I removed that bit. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, did the article ever actually say he was born in Jamaica, or was it just limited to this deceptive piping: Jamaica? If the latter, it is a nice anecdote about Misplaced Pages; if the former, it deserves bookmarking for posterity! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, I think it was worse. Born in Jamaica and raised in Jamaica Estates. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article never said or suggested that he was born in the island-nation of Jamaica.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit refers to the Jamaica, Queens edit Jamacia.I should linked it, but I never at any time suggested it said Jamaica. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Jumbled chronology

This BLP now says:

This is too much detail about his sister, and misplaced before we describe ancestry. I object to these major reverts of material that has been edited and discussed so recently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The ancestry section was out of place. His ancestors are his parents and their parents. It belongs in the beginning of the family. Mention of his sister can be trimmed. Also, you always object to any change. See WP:OWN. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I don't object to the vast majority of edits by other editors. I try to focus on the most disruptive ones. If you don't like the placement of the Ancestry section, why not simply move it? Are you upset about something? It's best to take a break instead of making a high-profile BLP reflect that you are upset.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I did move the ancestry section. I moved it to Early life and family. Also I don't think it's too much about Judge Barry. She's had to suspend her chambers because her brother is president of the United States. She's not required to suspend her chambers, but she's doing it so there's no question of bias. I think that's notable in the family section. It's due weight given the importance of her position. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, there is no section or subsection anymore titled "Ancestry" or the like. It's all a jumble now, and I disagree with that. As for the sister, you're bouncing around from one extreme to the other.. Please stop disrupting the BLP (apparently with every intention of doing so).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent reshuffling by SW3 5DL, because the result was hard to comprehend. I'm not against some changes, however they should be discussed here to gain prior consensus. I usually appreciate your work but you've been a bit too bold today… — JFG 06:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, what I see right now is you edit warring. You've no real justification for this. I've used the talk page, these are good edits and you've rolled back eveything without any justification. Please revert yourself. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The remedies template at the top reads: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It conspicuously does not say the challenge has to make sense to you for this to apply. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Mandruss is correct about the process. To your objections, I did justify my revert with comment "Recent reshuffling looks messy; see Talk", and I have now posted a detailed reply at WP:ANI. Please note that three editors have independently voiced disagreement with all or part of your edit spree (Anything, Muboshgu and myself), so perhaps it's time to pause for a while, reflect and discuss; I'm pretty sure we'll find consensus soon. — JFG 07:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry and Education into chronological order

I moved the 'ancestry' section to Early life and family. It's a better chronology as it seemed disjointed to be away from his earliest life with his parents. I also looked at other presidential BLPs, namely Barack Obama's and I noted there is no separation of parents and grandparents heritage into an "ancestry" section. I also moved the photos, but you don't really get an accurate preview so it's hard to see if any text will wrap. They should probably go back if anybody is bothered by the text wrapping around them. But farther down the article, all the photos are on the right. That seems a bit much. There needs to be some staggering of photos to break up the text so readers will keep reading. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I also moved education to be below "Early life and family." This keeps it in chronological order, followed by "marriages and children," "religious views," "health," and "Net worth." SW3 5DL (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your description here about the Ancestry section is inaccurate. The word "Ancestry" is now nowhere in the BLP, and it is no longer a distinct section. I objected above, and starting a new talk page section does not somehow supersede that objection. Moreover, the "Education" section was below the "Early life" section before you started editing today.. Why pretend otherwise? It also seems your edits are making this article sound somewhat illiterate, with phraseology like "Trump credits his abstinence of alcohol...." And why do you want that exact same information about alcohol to be in two different sections? To drill it into readers' minds by repetition? I'm afraid I will have to hit the booze pretty soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I removed the word 'ancestry' as it now seems pointless, when I moved that section to "Early life and family." It is now combined with Trump's birth and his early childhood life with his parents. Ergo, their background is best there. I don't see the point of the word 'ancestry' but I suppose we could have an RfC if it turns into a big issue. As I said, I've gone over several presidential BLPs, and I don't see any of them giving such weight to 'ancestry.' And when you read through his parents and grandparents background, there's only one mention of the Trump name changing in the 17th century, and I don't see how that justifies a separate ancestry section. In addition, what ancestors did, or did not do, really has no bearing on what a person is doing in their life in the present. So other than a name change from Drumpf to Trump, a separate section for 'ancestry' seems undue. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is really a sub-discussion of the "Jumbled chronology" discussion above. Please let's get some consensus before reshuffling it all (I have reverted). — JFG 06:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Structure of personal life section

Maybe the best use of our time would be to get consensus on the structure of the personal life section, so we can add it to the list of consensuses at the top of this talk page. I am open to changes. Here is what the structure currently is:

1 Personal life

   1.1 Early life
   1.2 Ancestry
   1.3 Education
   1.4 Family
   1.5 Religious views
   1.6 Health
   1.7 Net worth

Does anyone have a proposal how to change this, or not?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's still exactly where I moved it so I don't see what's wrong with it. It's in chronological order. There's nothing "jumbled, shuffled, or messy" about it. The only difference is you've added back "ancestry," which seems unnecessary, and no doubt down the line will be eliminated. It's not like we're putting in his family tree back to the Vikings. It goes to his grandparents, which they don't need to be there either. And the even the mention of his name change back in the 17th century, really?, seems silly. It's been a long way since the 17th century. But maybe an RfC will sort it. SW3 5DL (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, so let's put this header structure into the list of consensuses.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And family should be "Marriage and children," and "Early life" should be his parents, siblings, and whatever grandparents are to be added from the "ancestry." SW3 5DL (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think "Marriage and children" is too narrow even if you make "marriage" plural. It omits children-in-law, grandchildren, siblings, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to simply remove the "early life" subheader, and that would make the contents of that subsection into simply a preamble to the personal life section. What do you think about that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) On the contrary, it is very specific. It is Donald Trump's marriages and his children from those marriages. it is not his siblings. Any information about his siblings belongs in the Early life and Family section. His siblings are not his children and are already mentioned in the Early life section. Any more information about them belongs there, not in his "Marriage and children," section. He's grown up and moved on with his life and made his own family. And "Early life" sections are standard in BLPs and a feature of all presidential BLPs. He was born. Where was he born? To whom was he born? Did he have siblings? All those things must be answered and are expected to be in place under Early life. aSW3 5DL (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary to something I said? I said a header like "Marriage and children" instead of "family" is "too narrow". I didn't say it's not specific enough, quite the opposite. As to the rest of your comment, we have a lot of flexibility, so we don't have to do everything that's "standard" in the same standard way. But, in this BLP, how about if we re-name "early life" to "early life and education", and merge the education stuff into it? Like this:

1. Personal life

   1.1 Early life and education
   1.2 Ancestry
   1.3 Family
   1.4 Religious views
   1.5 Health
   1.6 Net worth

If that's not satisfactory then I support leaving it as-is (see first comment in this section) or simply removing the "early life" subheader so that its contents are a preamble to the "Personal life" section. Any of these three ways would be fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I support leaving the short intro sentences about his birth and siblings without an "Early life" header, then we go into Ancestry, Education, Family, etc. Elegant, clear and chronological. Also, the ancestry section could be trimmed a bit; there's a main article for 17th century details… — JFG 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The stuff about his uncle seems like the most excessive part of the Ancestry section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry makes no sense. It seems to be there only to support the 17th century claim about Drumpf. Which apparently is false anyway. Nobody's got 'ancestry' in their BLP. It's not like he's a member of the Royal family and we're tracing his lineage. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it, given that it's not immense. People wanted this in, so it went in, and I'll support keeping it just because I don't think we should be relitigating everything all the time. If it's good enough for royalty it's good enough for the American head of state. Other U.S. politicians have something similar, e.g. Bill Weld, Michelle Obama, etc. See also Justin Trudeau. Moreover, a couple sentences are appropriate to explain how the family fortune got started. Here's the structure now:

1	Personal life
  1.1	Ancestry
  1.2	Education
  1.3	Family
  1.4	Religion
  1.5	Health
  1.6	Wealth

Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! — JFG 10:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An example of the incredible liberal bias of this article and unacceptable sarcasm is when it states that Trump started his business on a "small loan of a million dollars," which is said in a mocking, biased and selective manner. Please fix this to use specifics and not be so terribly indoctrinated. Instead, you could add AS A SIDE NOTE:

"He started his business on a "small loan of a million dollars," which he argues is insignificant compared to the multi-billion dollar ambitions he had. Since he was given this loan, the Trump Organisation has grown to an international enterprise."

Or you can use similar language that is acceptably more impartial than what currently exists. trainsandtech (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the language in the BLP that's being criticized is this: "Trump has said that he began his career with 'a small loan of one million dollars' from his father (which 'isn't very much compared to what I've built'), and paid back that loan with interest." Here's the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any neutrality problem with the current language; I see no sarcasm there at all. "Small loan" is Trump's own characterization of the $1-million amount, which he repeated many times, and the article is not using this fact to disparage him. Trump's net worth is estimated at 4.5 billion dollars by Forbes. Turning 1 million to 4.5 billion is no small feat indeed. Imagine your father handed you a generous $10,000 when you graduated, and you managed to turn this "small loan" into a cool $45 million after a few decades. Wouldn't you be entitled to say it was a "small loan" compared to the fortune you created by your own work? — JFG 10:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trainsandtech: Yes, I see your point. In fact, originally it was "small" loan of a million dollars. I added the quotes to include all of that because obviously only quoting "small" seemed POV and intended to be POV. But this is the language Trump used when talking about the loan, because to him a million dollars for a real estate development (the old Commodore Hotel conversion) would have been a small loan. But you are correct, his distractors do use it in a POV way. SW3 5DL (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry text and origin of last name

I haven't looked into the editing history to see who was responsible, but what the hell is this?

His mother's Scottish grandfather, Donald Smith, had gone done with his fishing boat in 1868.

Gone done with his fishing boat? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Should be "down". Someone fixed it already, but then someone else carelessly reverted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I just fixed it again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There's another topic: "Drumpf". Since I am not allowed to change it myself at the moment, please read Talk:Frederick_Trump#Update:_The_legend_of_Hanns_Drumpf_.2817th_century.29 and maybe compare other relevant articles. Blair's book was first published in 2000 and it is still outstanding, but what might have seemed plausible to her almost 20 years ago is no more tenable today. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Klaus. This item at Snopes discusses this (less than momentous) matter. I will tweak this part of the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to this: "Trump's family name was spelled differently in the past (e.g. 'Trumpf') but it is uncertain when the spelling changes occurred." The citation is now to Kranish instead of Blair.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not in accordance with the data provided by the German Verein für Computergenealogie. See the link above to Talk:Frederick Trump. As far as I know, "Trumpf" was just a mistake when 16 years old Friedrich arrived in NY, not a change of spelling. And there is no evidence for such changes, or does Kranish present anything else? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a difference between GEDBAS and Verein für Computergenealogie? Your link to GEDBAS is not working for me. Kranish presents supporting documents here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I've changed this to "As for the last name 'Trump', it is uncertain when that spelling was established."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

GEDBAS seems to have a server problem at the moment. In the German version it is also called Verein für Computergenealogie. Please try again later. According to the family tree they present, the surname never changed and is traceable back to 1727 in a village near Kallstadt. As to spelling, German authorities have been very accurate over the centuries, obviously in contrast to the States including Gwenda Blair who often anglicised German names like Johannes to John. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: The link to Kranish is not of any help for me. Can you specify what might be relevant here? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It includes the "Trumpf" listing of his grandfather. But I'm not relying on that, and this BLP does not refer to it anymore, per your suggestion above that it may have been a mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Now the link to GEDBAS ist working again. Would you please compare the data with what Kranish presents? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I compared. FYI, there's a family tree here that goes back two generations further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I know, but that tree comes without any sources. — Now what is the outcome of your comparison? Is there any evidence that the spelling of Trump has been changed at all? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Vogel concurs with Blair that the spelling has been "Trump" since the early eighteenth century, if not earlier. But who is Vogel? Is he a recognized genealogy expert? Is he an employee of GEDBAS? We cannot cite him without establishing his credentials.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

But what is the purpose of your phrase that "it is uncertain when the spelling "Trump" was established"? We also don't know when MacLeod was established (which would be more interesting since surnames were introduced quite recently on Lewis and Harris, BTW). --Klaus Frisch (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump does not have "MacLeod" in his name, and also the spelling and etymology of "MacLeod" have not been discussed in many many many reliable sources that describe Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Here in Germany, John Oliver's satire did not get much attention, and that it caused an ongoing hype in the USA was new to me. In this case, you might have found the best solution. Thank you for your patience. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning the "uncertain" spelling change looks undue. Every family name that goes back centuries has been changed or spelled in different ways over time; this detail has no place in the BLP of a contemporary person. I will remove it unless somebody has a strong objection. — JFG 20:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I object to removing it, but am open to being convinced. A vast number of reliable sources refer to this silly controversy. If we remove it, it will come back in worse shape (a boomerang if you will).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything just had convinced me that in this very special case there should be a statement on this much discussed topic. On the other hand, Gwenda Blairs, hm, speculation that the name had been changed during the 30 Years War or so is imaginable, but in later centuries such re-spellings are very unlikely or impossible given the attitude and power of the authorities in Germany. So the controversy in the States might be even sillier than Anything thought, but this BLP is not the place to go into this further. And the boomerang would almost certainly afford more effort than just accepting the status quo. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If it seems to be relevant that DT said he was "proud of his German heritage" then it should also be mentioned that in The Art of the Deal (1987) he asserted to be of Swedish descent instead. And more interesting than his participation at the Steuben Parade (does anybody know about this seemingly important event?) would be when and why he changed his opinion from denial to proudness. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump's father Fred is the one who started all that Swedish stuff, which is somewhat understandable in view of anti-German sentiments in the wake of the two World Wars. Trump initially followed his father in that regard, out of ignorance or loyalty, or habit, or whatever. But it's primarily a detail about his father, and belongs in his father's BLP more than this one, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I agree about Fred. But I don't see why Donald's proudness and even this Steuben event should be mentioned without the background. The problems with this legend arose when Karlstad, the alleged Swedish hometown of his grandparents, wanted to build a monument or kind of that. We can omit all that, but his proudness and the Steuben parade alone is a strong bias. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

He's also made comments about being proud of his Scottish heritage. Either we should mention that too, or delete the German pride stuff. Which way do you prefer? Would both ways be acceptable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

His assertion that he "feeled Scottish" is even more ridiculous and should be supplemented with an appropriate context. Let's stick to the facts and delete irrelevant utterance. Thank you for this delightful cooperation. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Now some minor mistakes have occurred in this section. Kallstadt was and still is not a town but just a small village. And Donald's grandfather was officially named Friedrich when he came to NY at age 16, but later (at least since 1892 when he became a US citizen) Frederick. (Non-officially, he was called Fritz in the German-speaking milieu he still preferred in Queens.) --Klaus Frisch (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Anything's recent edit "small town" is still not correct. It is a village and in Germany, the difference is well defined. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll change it to "village" in a day or two. There are ridiculously strict rules at this article that make it much easier to insert stuff (like "small") than deleting stuff (like "town").Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Klaus Frisch: Thanks for your comments. I have switched to "village" and avoided repeating Friedrich's name. As we mention his name only when he first emigrated and came back after marriage, It would be overkill to delve into details of anglicizing his name to "Frederick" (which most immigrants did for convenience) – this is explained in the linked article about him. The last name discussion is imho totally undue, especially the speculation about 17th-century spellings. — JFG 06:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite the lead

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.

Please rewrite the lead of this biography, to fulfill its purpose to encourage readers to read the entire article. Wouldn't it be an honor if Misplaced Pages could be proud of it? Maybe one of you can suggest another guideline to follow than this one which seems to be weak and incomplete: WP:MOSBIO. Like maybe WP:LEAD. For starters:

• There is no good reason to promote a detail like "Elizabeth Trump & Son" in the second paragraph.
• Why do we have to wade through a political career like this? "but withdrew before voting began", He considered running... but decided against it".
• Why do we devote such a huge paragraph to "Trump's platform"? It is three of the most un-inspiring run-on sentences I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages, followed by a briefer fourth sentence that is a relief of summary style.

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I would delete that if it were in the article. I think article text needs to be much more clear and objective. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs to be rewritten, with removal of unnecessary details about content, that is supposed anyway to be covered sufficiently in the article. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the laundry list of campaign positions. No one here seems attached to it. I also removed the bit abut considering a run in 2012; merely thinking about something seems insufficient for inclusion in the lead. In contrast, he actually did run in 2000, so that ought to remain briefly in the lead, methinks. As for "Elizabeth Trump & Son", that was the name of the company when he took over, and he ran the company for more than four decades, so I don't see that mentioning "Elizabeth Trump & Son" in the lead is inapt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, we are getting somewhere! Thank you, Anythingyouwant. It already looks more than 50% better. Now about that Elizabeth Trump:

• Names catch our eyes and hold them. Three proper names besides Trump are in the lead (Elizabeth Trump, Mike Pence, and Hillary Clinton). Oh yeah, his company was named for his mother. No, she must have been his wife. Or maybe his sister? Oh yeah, his sister was named Elizabeth. Well, one of them maybe. Maybe she is dead now. I don't know. Anyway, what was I reading?
• The name Elizabeth Trump is not in the lead for the Misplaced Pages article The Trump Organization.
• One of Donald Trump's first acts on joining the company was to rename it.

Kindly reconsider. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, if it is true that Donald Trump led his company for four decades, why doesn't the lead say so? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I put "Elizabeth Trump & Son" into the lead of the company article, and into this lead have put that he ran it until 2017.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A few changes are in place, mostly removing so many wikilinks. I missed NBC (that and Forbes can be linked or not). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

46 years. And I support wikilinking wealthiest person, not seeing any reason not to. It's been there a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump isn't mentioned in a lot of the Misplaced Pages articles that are wikilinked in the lead. Anyway, you said Forbes can be linked, and The World's Billionaires is essentially that. Later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed both NBC and Forbes because the list of the world's billionaires does not mention Trump, and because a list is not the same thing as Forbes. I also removed the Reform Party sentence to shorten the lead further. Maybe 69.165.196.103 will help out. It would be great if this could be cut down to the length of a normal lead. I'll be back in a day or two. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is already a very short lead. I object to these edits. He won two Reform Party primaries in 2000. Also, it seems silly to require that every wikilink in the lead point to a Misplaced Pages article that must mention Trump. So I have put the 2000 primary victories in. I don't care enough to bicker about the Forbes wikilink.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, now that paragraph makes sense because he won two primaries. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• before
• after

The lead looks like something to be proud of. I'm just getting ready to archive this thread. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Susan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI thread relating to this article

FYI those of you who are not aware, there is an ANI thread that my concern you, here. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a quality-driven American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States.

Please change 'an American businessman' to 'a quality-driven American businessman', because quality is an important aspect of the man, Donald Trump, whom this article is about. As a businessman, every company and building he has constructed has been quality-driven. He has demanded quality from every last person who has worked for or with him, and the quality of the American government has become his most recent goal.

Thank You! 76.11.118.30 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is puffery. Sounds like an ad. Objective3000 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Must. Resist. Commenting. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done — IVORK _Discuss 13:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We shall take it under advisement, and thank you for stopping by to comment. For your future reference, please be aware of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. Take care, and carry on.🇺🇸 And hello to everyone up there in Nova Scotia.😉Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Structure of section titled "Legal affairs, business bankruptcies, and personal taxes"

This section currently has this structure:

2.4 Legal affairs, business bankruptcies, and personal taxes
   2.4.1 Legal affairs
   2.4.2 Business bankruptcies
   2.4.3 Taxes

I'd like to change the last subheader to "Personal taxes". Also, please note that the article Legal affairs of Donald Trump includes business bankruptcies and personal taxes. So, I suggest we change the main header (2.4) to "Legal affairs", and simply remove the first subheader (2.4.1) so that its contents are a preamble at the start of section 2.4.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I support these changes. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.  Done — JFG 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Net worth

The annual Forbes 2017 list is out and I made adjustments to the article. The consensus at the top of this page should be edited. Objective3000 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Education section passive voice

I made changes in the Education section and removed the use of passive voice. I also clarified the reason Trump's parents sent him to military school. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, use of the word 'stint' refers more commonly to the military and is a form of slang. Students attend college, they don't really do 'stints' there. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall, New York is no longer wikilinked. I can't think of any reason for not wikilinking it. What is the purpose of making other editors revert such a thing? And will a revert start a revert-war, or is removing the wikilink an accidental edit?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT of ongoing investigation

Just wanted to start a discussion on how much WP:WEIGHT the article should give to the fact that the FBI has an open investigation collusion with Russia. An open federal investigation concerning his current administration is historically significant. Should this be given more weight in the article? Should we expand and make more prominent the sections on Trump's ties with Russia? As this unfolds, this seems like what is most likely to be relevant 10 years from now.Casprings (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, we need to be careful. Is there an open federal investigation "concerning his current administration" as you say? Or does the investigation pertain to people associated with his campaign who are not in the administration? Moreover, has the investigation turned up any evidence yet of collusion? If not, there's no need to turn this BLP into a collusion article. User:Casprings, I see you have deleted that former DNI James Clapper knew of no collusion evidence as of January 2017. Will you do the same if Michael Morrell's similar statement is included in this BLP? We would not want to systematically delete all opinions that this is entirely unproven, would we?

Pinging User:Casprings again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

His statement, which he has clarified, was that he had no conclusive evidence at the time. To me, putting that in leads the reader down a POV that is given too much WP:Weight, given the limited about of text. The is especially true when we have the FBI director testifying today under oath that an investigation is ongoing.Casprings (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The two statements are different and neither one contradicts the other. There is an investigation, but they haven't found any evidence. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: This seems to be covered in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It would seem perhaps a paragraph but only if there is consensus to include it at this time. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is already included. But it is also an open federal investigation. Seems pretty weighty.Casprings (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep it in the relevant section; undue for lead. — JFG 06:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a biography. Mention it (one sentence) in the appropriate section. Nothing in the lede unless it blows up into a much bigger deal affecting Trump personally. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN's admonition is justified. From WP:BLPCRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted." Given that Trump has yet to even be accused of a crime, we are, for the duration, required to presume he's innocent. This logically requires that we presume the investigation will come to nothing.

The same holds for any investigation of any person associated with his campaign or administration.

This policy is intended to and does override WP:WEIGHT policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is correct. Err on the side of caution regarding criminal investigations and trials of living persons in their biographies. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Religious views

This sentence,

"The pastor at that church, Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking and The Art of Living, ministered to Trump's family and mentored him until Peale's death in 1993. Trump, who describes himself as a Presbyterian, has cited Peale and his works during interviews when asked about the role of religion in his personal life." 

does not illuminate the reader on why mention of Norman Vincent Peale is important in the article. This isn't about Peale, it is about the influence that Peale had on Trump's thinking and his positive outlook in everything he does. The sentence as is, makes Peale the actor and Trump the 'acted upon,' or passive receiver of being 'ministered to,' But how did he 'minister' to Trump? What did Trump get out of that?. I tried to correct this but it was reverted in a rollback. Also, note that the only book that matters there is The Power of Positive Thinking. It is this book that Trump frequently refers to when discussing his outlook and his belief that he can do anything he sets his mind to.

Any suggestions? There are plenty of sources to show the relationship between Trump and Peale. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

My main concern with the part of the article you quote is "Trump, who describes himself as a Presbyterian...." Better to say he is a Presbyterian if a reliable source can be found. As to Peale, I think we say enough. But I have no objection to adding footnotes for readers who would like to learn more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It needs to explain Trump's religious views and his use of positive thinking should be mentioned. Peale should only be mentioned tangentially as the author and that Trump considered him a mentor. That's important because the only other person Trump identified as a mentor, was his father. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to post a draft here, but we already have a fairly large section on religion, and it's adequate in my opinion. Other editors may agree with you, however. A draft would help everyone figure out just what you have in mind.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think we have any strong evidence of DJT's religious views at all, and they do not appear to be a significant part of his life. Absent multiple sources over time, I don't see any mention. Objective3000 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I see what you mean. Trump doesn't have a 'religious message' like say George W. Bush with his born-again experiences, and frequent references to Jesus and being saved. But Trump did make a connection to what Peale was saying in his weekly sermons. The sermons, not to be reductive, were along the lines of "you can if you think you can." That is basically Trump's whole religious philosophy. This is why I think the edit as it stands now does not do service to that. It focuses instead on Peale and his books, not on what Trump took from Peale's message. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it already clear in the BLP that Trump absorbed from Peale "The Power of Positive Thinking"? If we bloat up this subsection it may be entirely deleted, and surely will not be stable. I would really like to move the focus of discussion here to later sections of this BLP, having devoted enormous attention already to the "Personal Life" section. Nobody (including me) will ever be 100% satisfied with it. Please?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't clear at all because it's about Peale, not Trump's use of Peale's philosophy. What does 'ministering to' even mean? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that in this context, given that the sentence clearly demonstrates the influence of Peale on Trump's religion (extra footnotes would be appreciated, of course), there is no need for removing anything. As for "Trump describing himself as a Presyterian", that should be an accurate reflexion of the sources. If the sources say "Trump is a Presbyterian", then change it. Otherwise, if the sources say "Trump considers himself to be a Presbyterian" (or similar), then the current wording in the article is correct. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I could be dead wrong, but it seems to me that there are only a few statements about his religion over seven decades, probably most of them during his campaign. His own church said he isn’t a regular member. I’d say the less said the better on the subject. Not sure why it’s mentioned at all. I think there was a discussion on this quite a while back, and there have been lengthy discussions on mentions of religion in BLP info boxes when religion is not a major part of the person’s life. Objective3000 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, Religion and politics in the United States does mention that "Research shows that candidates that are perceived to be religious are considered more trustworthy." It's possible that Trump's religious ideas are nothing more than sensible realpolitik (I frankly have no opinion on the matter - I'm not a theist), but then we are still bound to report what sources write. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nor am I a theist, and I agree with your point. But, I have no problem with the article on Bush 43 discussing his religion as it appears to have shaped his beliefs as per innumerable sources. I don’t see the same depth of sources for DJT. Objective3000 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

He is Presbyterian per Glueck, Katie. "Trump's religious dealmaking pays dividends", Politico (December 7, 2016). So, I have made this change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a Politico article on religious deal making is a reflection of Donald Trump's religion/religious views. It seems to me the press is making a big issue not Donald Trump because of the GOP's appeal to the religious right. All GOP candidates have to acknowledge those groups or they can't get anywhere. Our job here is to separate the wheat from the chafe. He's a Presbyterian, who goes to church sometimes, probably because he's got a 10 year old child and wants to instill some religious training. But his philosophy is 'you can if you think you can.' And that's how he got to the White House. All the other bits about the family being Lutherans and the opinions of others and Peale 'ministering' and all those bits, are entirely undue weight. And the same can be said for the ancestry section. Zero is being given about his birth family, and way too much is being given about his "ancestors,' who have no bearing here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't see why we use this Politico article? Obviously, we use it so that we can say "Trump is Presbyterian" instead of the previous drivel ("Trump describes himself as a Presbyterian"). Here is what the BLP says now:

Do you object to saying he is Presbyterian? Do you object to supporting that statement with footnotes? I do not understand what the problem with using Politico is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many sources that call him a Presbyterian. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And I came across the Politico source first. It's perfectly valid for this purpose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The entire section is poorly written, badly sourced, and has nothing to do with what Donald Trump believes. The reader comes away with no idea where this man stands on anything. They just know what others are saying and that Peale 'ministered' to him, whatever that ridiculous word means. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries tell us that the word "minister" (as a verb) means to attend to the needs of (someone) or to act as a minister of religion. The second cited source says that Peale "ministered to Trump and his parents before his 1993 death."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:LISTEN SW3 5DL (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is your point that you don't really object to how I've used Politico (as you said you did), and that you don't really object to the word "ministered" (as you said you did), and instead you are just trying to expresss general frustration and opposition to the "Religion" section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you read any of my comments? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and I've responded as best I can, so I'll bow out now. As I said, "As to Peale, I think we say enough" so we don't need to mention more. I agree with Objective3000: "Absent multiple sources over time, I don't see any mention." And I agree with IP69 about what we've said in the BLP: "the sentence clearly demonstrates the influence of Peale on Trump's religion (extra footnotes would be appreciated, of course)...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting at all that the sentence be added to. I'm saying it's needs to be rewritten. In fact, the whole section needs a rewrite. It rambles, and too much is written about Norman Vincent Peale and his books and his 'ministering.' It should be concise, and it should not have previous mention of his ancestors being Lutherans which had no effect on Trump. It should start and end with Donald Trump. And the mention of his marriage at the Marble Collegiate Church is already mentioned in the "Family" section. Lots of redundancy, and too much lack of focus, and poorly written. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I was so busy addressing your objections about Politico, and the word "minister", that I neglected to address your objection about the word "Lutheran". The BLP says, "The Trump family were originally Lutherans in Germany, and his mother's upbringing was Presbyterian in Scotland." That's all. If we omit the Lutheran part of this sentence, the Presbyterian part would seem weird and unbalanced. Mentioning both is quite illuminating. It shows where Trump got his Presbyterianism. And it also shows that his father was deferential to his mother.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why a rewrite is needed. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Every particular objection that you have made in this section has been rebutted. But, like I said above, "Feel free to post a draft here."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think "describes himself as Presbyterian" is the best way to put it. The fact is, he is no more a Presbyterian than Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Nixon probably never went to a Quaker meeting in his adult life, but his mother was Quaker so that's what he said. Trump was confirmed in the Presbyterian church as a teenager, so that's what he says - even though he is basically nonreligious. His public statements reveal that he knows next to nothing about the Christian faith he supposedly professes. He does not attend church with any kind of consistency, and when he does need a church (say to get married) he chooses any old church that is handy. Presidents are expected to have a religion, and if they are basically nonreligious they apply a family label to themselves, and that is what Trump has done. "Describes himself" is the most accurate way to convey this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As SW3 said above, "There are many sources that call him a Presbyterian". We cite one of them. Maybe they do so inappropriately, but, well, they're the reliable sources and we're not. See also How to Be a Christian without Going to Church: The Unofficial Guide to Alternative Forms of Christian Community. I am not a part of organized religion myself, preferring the disorganized kind.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly advise that we postpone further debate on this subject until such time as he is officially excommunicated. It is for theLORDto judge the sincerity of his professed beliefs -- not us sinners. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Want to help build an article?

Anyone tired of quibbling over a word here and there, and wish they could do some actual article work? If so, here's an opportunity to do just that. I recently found out that we have no article on Trump's current foreign policy positions. The article Foreign policy of Donald Trump is just supposed to be about his positions as a candidate. His positions as president are supposed to go in a separate article called Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. I have started trying to put together such an article but it's a big job. The first step, currently under way, is to reduce and adapt the material in the "foreign policy of Donald Trump" article so that it becomes a fairly brief "during the campaign" introduction to each subject. After we complete that, we will undertake to add his current positions. This is all going on at a draft where you are welcome to help. Click here to find out how. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry

This sentence:

"Trump's father Fred was born in the Bronx, and worked with his mother since he was 15 as a real estate developer in New York City, eventually building and selling thousands of houses, barracks and apartments."

New York City is often considered Manhattan, even though NYC is made up of the five boroughs, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, The Bronx, and Staten Island. The sentence might be better if it clarified that Fred Trump focused on Queens and Brooklyn. Also, "selling thousands of houses, barracks, and apartments," is confusing. He did his work in stages, and was very much affected by World War II. There were no new housing starts then, unless it was contracted by the War Department for housing for workers. Trump got a contract for garden apartments for workers at naval shipyards in Chester, Pennsylvania and Newport News, Virginia. After the war, Fred built affordable housing for returning soldiers. He did not build 'thousands of houses.' He did build some single family homes, but for the most part, he built apartment high-rises, and while he sold some as condos, he kept ownership of most of the other buildings and collected rents. He built all of those in Queens and Brooklyn. He never built anything in Manhattan. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not object to deleting the word "City". The rest seems fine to me. The BLP later says "Elizabeth Trump and Son, which focused on middle-class rental housing in the New York City boroughs but also had some business out of state."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit here makes no sense. He did not build "near Manhattan." He had nothing to do with Manhattan and he discouraged Donald Trump from building there. Fred's projects were in Brooklyn and Queens. This is in multiple reliable sources. So your edit choice is odd, to say the least. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Brooklyn and Queens are near Manhattan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is confusing to introduce Manhattan here. Why not simply stay with "New York City"? It covers the 5 boroughs and doesn't need more precision. — JFG 04:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a big deal that Fred stayed away from Manhattan whereas his son dove in. We could try this: "Trump's father Fred was born in the Bronx, and worked with his mother since he was 15 as a real estate developer primarily in areas of New York City that are outside Manhattan." I'll go ahead and do that, since I'll be editing my previous edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, but perhaps with more direct phrasing such as "in the New York boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn"? As SW3 pointed out, some readers may have trouble understanding the difference between New York City and Manhattan: a link to Borough (New York City) would help. — JFG 08:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just installed a second wikilink to Borough (New York City), but piped this time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There's still another point I would like to discuss: It is not common sense that Donald's grandfather Frederick "skipped" the military service in Bavaria. Blair describes what happened at length in The Trumps. When young Friedrich left for NY, military service was no matter at all. And he later convincingly assured that he never had planned to go back to Germany. Only after his young wife had got severely homesick in NY, he gave up his own plans, returned to Kallstadt, where everybody was happy about that, and than was astonished about the reaction of the (somehow foreign) Bavarian authorities that were only interested in militarian aspects. A quite enormous correspondence ensued, with all the Palatinian parties being on Trump's side, but it ended with a − questionable − verdict.

This might have been not so important here but, as it was, Donald's father Fred would have been born in Kallstadt if the Bavarian authorities would habe been not so stubborn. Elizabeth was in the 5th month when they were forced to leave Germany. Interesting for the readers of this BLP or not? Given Donald's radical attitude towards immigrants? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting story, but it is rather far removed from Donald Trump's biography; it is appropriate for his grandfather's biography. — JFG 04:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest editing the sentence like this: "After two years in New York City, the couple returned to Kallstadt but was were ordered to leave in 1905 because Friedrich had skipped missed military service, so they settled in New York definitively".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I won't sue you. — JFG 08:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Or (more precisely) "because F. was considered a draft dodger". Only slightly longer. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's leave it as-is please. My understanding is that he was considered a draft-dodger by Bavarian authorities, but not by most people in his village, or by himself and his family.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

... and not by all of the Palatine authorities involved. It was a politically motivated decision based on the Wilhelminian militarism that had developed while Fritz Trump made his fortune in the USA and in the Klondike region. Gwenda Blair describes this at length in The Trumps. Just to say that he "missed" military service is misleading. It was not a mistake he made. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to say, Fred was "ordered to leave in 1905 because the authorities said Friedrich had missed military service...." They said some other harsh stuff, but I don't think we need to re-broadcast it, at least not in this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Now it is not about harshness but about correctness. When young Fritz went to NY to his elder sister, military service was not obligatory in Germany and he was still too young. So it is still misleading to say that he "missed" it. And the reason why he was expelled from Germany 20 years later was explicitly that he was considered a draft dodger. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you're using passive voice which makes it seem like everyone considered him a draft dodger, which we both know is incorrect. Moreover, the word "miss" has among its definitions this: "fail to attend, participate in, or watch". Every draft dodger misses military service, and there is no reason why we should use the harshest terminology possible, especially given that we agree the accusation of draft dodging may well have been ill-founded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As you just wrote above, he was considered a draft-dodger by Bavarian authorities. That's what I referred to. And it is not a fact that Fritz failed to do anything when he left as a boy. On the other hand, he actually was expelled because he was considered a draft dodger by the relevant authorities (very high Bavarian authorities as far as I can recall). This was harsh! And it was official, not just hear-say. One of the consequences was that Donald's father Fred who was supposed to grow up in Kallstadt was born in the Bronx instead only 4 months later. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

But he was considered by Bavarian authorities to have failed to do something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Klaus Frisch: Given the political changes in the Palatinate region between 1885 and 1905, would it be correct to say "the new Bavarian authorities" instead of simply "the authorities"? — JFG 05:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry. The changes were not in the region, and the authorities were still the same as before. What had changed was the politics of the whole Kaiserreich, a militarization that ultimately lead to WW I. Gwenda Blair describes this on pp. 98ff. in The Trumps. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, then the current text looks good enough. We can't expound at length about political circumstances of pre-WW1 Germany in a biography about an American real estate tycoon… Thanks! — JFG 16:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I object to the edit. It's not informative at all. Brooklyn and Queens, what is not clear about Fred Trump staying there? What does, "boroughs outside Manhattan" mean precisely? Why can't the article say, Brooklyn and Queens? What's to hide there? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your whole argument here was based on the idea that uninformed readers will not understand that Manhattan is smaller than New York City. So, if we say Brooklyn and Queens, those uninformed readers will not understand that those are anywhere near Manhattan. "Manhattan" and "New York City" are much more understandable terms than "Brooklyn" and "Queens", so why not use them? They're clear enough. Does it mean we're "hiding" something if we don't say that Fred's office was on Avenue Z?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As a German who has never been to the USA, it has been clear to me since I was quite young that Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are all parts of NYC. Here I just don't see why Manhattan should be mentioned at all. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Doing business in Manhattan was the big difference between Donald Trump and his father; he did, his father didn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There are several "big" differences between Donald and his father. This one is not relevant at all. What's the matter with you? Why are you so stubborn out of the blue? Maybe some would help. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Klaus, Klaus, Klaus, I agree with you 100% that wine would be helpful, because wine is always helpful. But as regards Manhattan, Kranish has a whole chapter titled "Crossing the Bridge". Trump's father carefully avoided doing so, and advised his son against it, but the son was stubborn, more stubborn than I! 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I changed it to "primarily in the New York boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn", with appropriate wikilinks. — JFG 05:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, thanks. Now if you could just solve the problem of the run on sentence with a period at the end and then a new sentence, "He eventually built. . ." that would solve it. here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Trump family lie

Why is there no mention of the "Swedish" family lie, maintained for two generations, and embellished by Donald himself? They lied that they were Swedish. No mention at all? That smacks of censorship, especially since Donald himself embellished the lie. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump's father Fred is the one who started all that Swedish stuff, which is somewhat understandable in view of anti-German sentiments in the wake of the two World Wars. Trump initially followed his father in that regard, out of ignorance or loyalty, or habit, or whatever. But it's primarily a detail about his father, and belongs in his father's BLP more than this one, IMHOAnythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree, but Donald not only consciously maintained it, he embellished it, IOW he lied some more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In an article entitled "The Swedish Whopper: Donald Trump's Long-standing Struggle With the Truth," the Trump family lie is revealed to be their claim, maintained for two generations, that they are Swedish, when in fact they are Germans. Donald's father, Fred Trump, "for a reason that has never been disclosed, began telling people that he was Swedish." The lie was repeated by Fred's son Donald, who, in The Art of the Deal (1987), repeated and embellished the lie by claiming that Friedrich Trump, "came here from Sweden as a child," even though he left his family and emigrated from his home town, Kallstadt, Germany, in 1885, when he was 16 years old. Wayne Barrett confirmed that Donald also claimed that his own father, Fred Trump, was "born in New Jersey to Swedish parents; in fact, he was born in the Bronx to German parents."

BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Haaretz (March 25, 2016). "The Swedish whopper: Donald Trump's long-standing struggle with the truth - U.S. Election 2016". Haaretz. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
2. Daly, Michael (March 24, 2016). "Donald Trump Even Lies About Being Swedish (Hes Actually German)". The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 24, 2017.
3. Gwenda Blair (2000). The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-1079-9.
4. Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

I don't think there's room in this BLP to cover all of Trump's inaccuracies. And whom did this one harm? All the anti-German bigots who otherwise would have discriminated against him? Trump corrected the error of his father, and it's basically trivial, IMHO. Trump has said that he is proud of his German heritage; he served as grand marshal of the 1999 German-American Steuben Parade in New York City.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have got too little coverage for inclusion. Do his biographers spend pages about it or is it just mentioned in passing? Anti-German feeling in the U.S. actually pre-dates the wars and was comparable to anti-Irish feeling. TFD (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, and there may have been some sincere confusion in some reports between Kallstadt (Germany) and Karlstad (Sweden)… or perhaps Fred Trump played on this quasi-homonym to evade suspicions of being pro-German. In any case, this belongs in Fred Trump's article only. — JFG 08:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It may not be as biographically significant as other things, but it is certainly interesting and tied directly to the subject. We had similar decisions to make in the Barack Obama article, where it was necessary to have the odd interesting, but not necessarily significant, item to keep the article from being very dry. This could probably be boiled down to a single sentence inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not easy to cover in one sentence. We'd need to explain anti-German sentiment, we'd need to explain that he ultimately served as grand marshal of the 1999 German-American Steuben Parade in New York City, we'd need to explain when the fib started and when it ended, and we'd need to explain whether his ghostwriter was in on the fib. It's basically a mess.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to 'explain' anything, just state it. I'm sure we are up to the challenge. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's right, we don't have to be fair and include context, and we don't have to follow the reliable sources that do so. Especially because that would take some effort on our part to find out the context. Yuck!Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not important enough for this article. It would take a full paragraph to explain all of this, in an article that is already way longer than ideal. Donald Trump ultimately set the record straight and IMO this is not a significant aspect of his biography. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey and SPECIFICO:, I agree. It can be put into one sentence and should be mentioned, especially as I've been studying the Barack Obama article. It's FA and we need more editors from there to get this article to that level. They've got the experience and judgment over the last 8 years in what should and should not be included and how best to do that. Fred Trump was mindful of German resentment and did everything he could to keep it from hurting his business and rightly so. Yes, this belongs. It's significant. Support inclusion. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the sentence "Trump refers to his ghostwritten book..." (Religion section), please add link ]. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 11:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion in infoboxes

Can someone give me a link to the discussion where it was decided not to put the person's religion in most infoboxes (unless it was a significant part of their notability, or whatever the wording was)? There is someone going around adding religion to dozens if not hundreds of infoboxes. I have asked them to stop, but I'd like to be able to cite the discussion where consensus was reached. Anyone have that link? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The main discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, but there were also multiple discussions on this talk page, starting from (I think) Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 12 and going on there for a few additional archived pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Scjessey, that Village Pump link was what I was looking for. I see that discussion was actually about removing the "religion" parameter from infobox person - which was agreed to but was apparently not done retroactively, since it is still there in existing articles. In fact its continued existence, and the fact that it is blank, is why people keep trying to add the person's religion. Could we delete it from the infobox here, or would that break the template? Anyhow, we might want to add the archived discussions here to our "current consensus" section, what do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was just in the infobox person as per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Religion in Infoboxes!. The exact thing that was occurred was the deletion of the parameter in said infobox, meaning that any edits going against the consensus won't be visible. Any edit on an infobox using a different template should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if User:Therequiembellishere is going around and deleting the parameter from infoboxes - maybe as a result of this discussion or the one at AN. Thank you, requiembell! But there are a HELL of a lot of recent additions to deal with: see I feel bad for that editor, he is a longtime editor who was clearly operating in good faith, feeling that all those blank spaces next to "religion" should be filled in. Removing the parameter from the box should eliminate that temptation. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @MelanieN:! I'd actually just finished going through his additions right as you pinged me! It was a big of a slog but I don't begrudge it! Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

None of the parameters are required. The religion parameter can simply be omitted. That will discourage people from constantly adding something. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights section

RfC Please can on the discussion at #RfC - LGBT rights. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should include an LGBT rights section. Right now mention of same sex-marriage is folded into 'social policy.' But as it is important domestic policy in the US and has wide coverage in RS, it should be under a heading of its own. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you on about this He personally supports "traditional marriage" but considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.? If so then I am for keeping it where it is for now, but I am open minded to moving it to a section like you have proposed if their is more content to write. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As you may well know, during the campaign he was open to LGBT rights. When asked about gay marriage, he said it was the law of the land. End of. And when asked if Caitlyn Jenner could use the women's room at Trump Tower he said yes. Jenner then went to Trump Tower and after said, "Thank you Donald. Not you Ted," meaning Ted Cruz who opposed it. But now, there's the Texas case on allowing transgender access to bathrooms in schools. I believe the Trump DOJ has withdrawn the objection to the stay. And as he is just in the first 100 days of his presidency, there is more to come. I think it should be established now and with reliable sources rather than buried in this 'social policy,' catchall. Especially as, there is confusion in the LGBT+ community because of the choice of Mike Pence for the VP. The issues should be expanded under its own heading, imho. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is a civil rights issue, not simply a social issue. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal, because the political positions section should just be a sumary of many different positions, not singling out particular issues. Perhaps a separate section would be okay at Political positions of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry Part II

The following paragraph needs to be removed from the article because the article is about Donald Trump, not his ancestry. Grandfathers and Grandmothers are viable topics but need to be covered in their own articles or Trump Family article. Please note the treatment of the grandfathers and grandmothers in other similar bios such as former President Barack Obama: "His paternal grandfather, Friedrich Trump, first emigrated to the United States in 1885 (aged 16), became a citizen in 1892, and amassed a fortune operating boom-town restaurants and boarding houses in the Seattle area and the Klondike region of Canada, during the gold rush. On a visit to his home village, he met Elisabeth Christ and married her in 1902. After two years in New York City, the couple returned to Kallstadt but were ordered to leave in 1905 because Friedrich had missed military service, so they settled in New York definitively. He died from the flu pandemic of 1918 and Elizabeth incorporated the family real estate business, Elizabeth Trump and Son, which would later become The Trump Organization." Please remove from article, for undue weight, off topic.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I disagree. Yes, this article is and should be about Trump. However, we can't just leave out all related information - putting links to main articles is appropriate. However, we should also include short information about those linked topics in the article, otherwise the article is not complete. WP:OFFTOPIC is only when something is completely, not even tangentially, related. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see sufficient rationale in your suggestion to remove a person's ancestry from the article concerning that person directly. It most likely wouldn't be adding an undue weight to the article. RoCo 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Given Donald Trumps political agenda, basic informations about his own immigrant wife and grandparents are essential. It might be undue to make it explicit that all three of them were poor young people without a perspective where they came from and who came to the States just because of that. Or that his grandparents were kind of refugees in 1905 because they were expelled from Germany where they intended to stay. Or that Elizabeth was pregnant with Donald's father Fred who would have been born in Germany instead of the Bronx 4 months later under normal circumstances. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. It belongs here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Section wlinks in lead

I plan on changing the Trump-specific wlinks in the lead so that they point to the appropriate sections of this article instead of to other articles. The sections of this article have hatnotes that can take interested readers to other articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your reasoning? That is not standard practice here. We usually have wikilinks throughout articles, including the leads. Barring a very good reason, one that should become part of the MoS and applied to all articles, I see no need to deviate from standard practice. Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that we shouldn't have wikilinks to other articles. We should have them in the lead and also throughout this article. What I'm saying is that, if there's a particular Misplaced Pages article that is summarized in this article per WP:Summary style, and if the summary includes a hatnote linking to the main article that's being summarized, then the lead here ought to have a section wikilink instead of an article wikilink in that particular type of circumstance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Okay, go for it. BTW, I don't know if this would interest you, but I have a different idea (not for use here) which I've tried in a couple of my essays. Take a look at this one: How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead "section references" -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I just took at look at that. That's a great idea that will work on ton of articles. I will keep it in mind going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. About this! I hope the manual of style is edited accordingly, and I hereby request that you ping me if I can be of any help in that regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that essay a long time ago, but have never tried to get that feature incorporated into our MoS. If there's a chance, then maybe we can move forward and give it a try. Do you think there's a chance? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably it's worth asking at an MOS talk page before making a formal proposal. I have no idea whether it would fly; some Wikipedians may say that it's already common sense 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time local consensus ought to be allowed to do what they think is appropriate. So if it goes into the MOS then maybe it should be phrased in terms of what is "normally" done or "unless the section is tagged as deficient" or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit for Ancestry section - Survey

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.

In the Ancestry section it says:

"Trump's father Fred was born in the Bronx, and worked with his mother since he was 15 as a real estate developer primarily in areas of New York City that are outside Manhattan, eventually building and selling thousands of houses, barracks and apartments."

Might it be better to say,

"Trump's father Fred was born in the Bronx. At the age of 15, he went to work for his mother's company, E. Trump & Sons. During World War II, he built garden apartments for the War Department in Chester, Pennsylvania and Newport News, Virginia for the US Navy. After the war, Fred Trump built housing for returning G.I.s in Brooklyn and Queens. The only housing development that bears his name is Trump Village in Coney Island, New York."

I have reliable sources for this edit. Please support or oppose this suggested edit. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. First, I do not favor expansion of the Ancestry section, which has already been called excessive by some editors. The proposed edit would increase the length by about 35 words. The proposal is also redundant; the section already says “Elizabeth incorporated the family real estate business, Elizabeth Trump and Son”. It is also too detailed (who cares whether the city in Pennsylvania was Chester instead of Scranton?). Details like this should go into the article about Fred Trump. Moreover, I don’t see that “Trump Village” bears his name as opposed to the family name. And this proposed language incorrectly suggests that he never built any housing for people who never served in the military.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Basically I agree with everything Anythingyouwant said. Fred Trump details that aren't 100% specific to Donald Trump should go in Fred Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey:, it's really the grammar that needs fixing. My edit was just a suggestion. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: to clarify, my edit is only a suggestion, as it is the poorly written sentence that is the issue. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

RfC - LGBT rights

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the Domestic Policy section of this article contain a section for LGBT rights? Please indicate 'support' or 'oppose' below. Please remember to use the discussion section for comments. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. This is not a social issue as it is being treated as such in the article at this time. This is an important civil rights issue that Donald Trump has spoken out on. There is widely cited reliable sourcing from the New York Times and WashPo, et al to support this. This is an issue that all presidents, from Reagan on through Obama have dealt with, and it is no different for Trump. Pretending this is a minor social issue, does not make it so. Trump's DOJ has removed the Obama DOJ's objection to the stay on the issue of transgender access to bathrooms in schools. That signals a policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is widely considered a social issue, which are not mutually exclusive with civil rights issue. There is already a section titled "Social issues" which summarizes the article Social policy of Donald Trump. That seems compliant with WP:Summary style, and it is already a lot more specific than the headers we use for his campaign political positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Draft something if you wish, but I don't think there's enough notable content to warrant this. Most of the media reports are speculation, and like every issue he's back and forth about many/most details. It's mostly just buzz based on things he and his staff/friends have said; perhaps besides the school bathrooms issue, I don't find it significant enough. Also, this article is unwieldy enough; his Social Policy article should be sufficient. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - think not WP:DUE amount of his time spent on this area as he's more about immigration items and america first in the coverage. Also, remember this is his Biography page, and if you mean policy as President then it should be in the article Presidency of Donald Trump. Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support compromise: The treatment of his position on LGBT rights should be expanded to a full paragraph (of no more than three sentences). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Political positions should be trimmed from the biography and expanded in the relevant articles such as, for LGBT issues, Social policy of Donald Trump. — JFG 05:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: LGBT rights are a social issue, not domestic. Prcc27 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding something just because its socially trendy L3X1 (distant write) 13:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) - At the moment, Donald Trump has expressed views about LGBTQ rights, but that is all. At this early stage of the Trump presidency, the administration has not involved itself in any LGBTQ-specific policy or legislation. If that changes, a time may come when the article will need exactly what SW3 has proposed. And with the various ghastly "religious freedom restoration" proposals, this may happen sooner that one might imagine. Please see Barack Obama#Domestic policy for how a featured article handles the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless you plan to add a voting rights section, and a women's rights section, and a whole lot of others. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Initial discussion Please see above at #LGBT rights section for initial comments made. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As measured by total volume of (domestic or global) mainstream news reporting, US government officials' positions on LGBT rights is more significant and noteworthy than their positions on abortion rights, gun control, marijuana control, capital punishment, and waterboarding combined. Accordingly, information about an official's political position on LGBT rights is often significant and noteworthy enough for inclusion in his or her biography. In Trump's case, I would support a 2- or 3-sentence description of his position, given that his positions on other social topics merit a total of 5 sentences. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: agree with and would appreciate it if you would add "support," not 'support compromise,' As the paragraph is not written yet. This is an important, well-established civil rights issue that recent presidents have had to deal with, including Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, and Barack Obama. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: With respect to the removal of the objection (transgender bathroom use), while it is causes egregious and unnecessary pain to transgender children, it's not a significant move in the grand scheme of things, since it is only the removal of an objection in a case concerning a particular state. In essence, it is more about state's rights than an LGBTQ policy. Not enough to promote the concept to a section yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail claim for early support for Reagan

Daily Mail has been determined to be an unreliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764420952#Daily_Mail_RfC

We need another source for the claim that Trump was an early supporter of Reagan. Seeing history, an editor mentions "The Daily Mail citation was not the first in the article" but I am unsure what was meant (I left a message on user's talk page) -- I do not see another citation for this claim, but perhaps I am overlooking something? In any event, if there is another source for this claim, we should use that source rather than the Daily Mail which I believe is unacceptable in these circumstances. Adlerschloß (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We don't use the Daily Mail. It's been hashed out many times on RSN. It's a community wide decision. The cite needs to go and if necessary add in . This article would never get to GA with the DM. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump gave some money to Jimmy Carter in 1980, while simultaneously helping Reagan raise money. After Reagan won, Trump gave some money to Mondale for 1984, and money to Reagan too for 1984. Roger Stone has repeatedly said that Trump was a BIG help to Reagan in 1980 in various specific ways, but AFAIK reliable sources have not taken Stone's story as reliable unattributed fact. The Trumps were Goldwater Republicans, but they were also New Yorkers, so they may well have tried to be discreet about supporting Reagan. In The Art of the Deal, Trump went so far as to question whether there was any substance behind Reagan's smile. So, the matter is sufficiently ambiguous that we should probably leave it out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• C-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Top-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment