Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:42, 1 August 2016 editDoc9871 (talk \| contribs)23,298 editsm →1 RR restriction and recent spurious reverts: f← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:31, 9 January 2025 edit undoErnestKrause (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,901 edits →The late president's article: Maybe, but Health should go to the bottom of the article.
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
	{{pp-blp\|expiry=00:00, 11 November 2016\|small=yes}}
	{{~~Skip to talk~~}}		{{Controversial}}
			{{Calm}}
	{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Warning RS and OR}}
	{{Article history\|action1=GAN
			{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}
	\|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006
			{{tmbox
			\|image = ]
			\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
			{{div col}}
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			{{div col end}}
			... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
			}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=activepol \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid \|american=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States Presidents \|importance=Top \|trump=yes \|trump-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
			{{Banner holder \|text= Page history \|collapsed=y \|1=
			{{Article history
			\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing
	\|action1result=failed		\|action1result=failed
	\|action1oldid=56507759		\|action1oldid=56507759

	\|action2=GAN		\|action2=GAN
	\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007		\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
	\|action2result=failed		\|action2result=failed
	\|action2oldid=107442121		\|action2oldid=107442121
	\|currentstatus=FGAN}}
	{{2016 US Election AE}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|activepol=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Biography\|living=Yes\|class=B\|a&e-work-group=Yes\|a&e-priority=Mid\|politician-work-group=Yes\|politician-priority=High\|listas=Trump, Donald}}
	{{WikiProject Business\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Donald Trump}}
	{{WikiProject Television\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject New York City\|class=B\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Florida\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Pennsylvania\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Philadelphia\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=B\|importance=Mid\|American=Yes\|American-importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Professional wrestling\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism \|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject United States\|class=B\|importance=High\|USPE=Yes\|USPE-importance=Mid\|USTV=Yes\|USTV-importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania\|class=B\|importance=Low}}
	{{WP1.0 \|class=B \|importance=Low \|v0.7=pass \|category=socsci}}
	\|collapsed=yes
	}}
	{{American English}}
	{{calm}}
	{{controversial}}
	{{press \| collapsed=yes\|author=Cuozzo, Steve\|date=November 16, 2013\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/ \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages\|org='']''
	\|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page \|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page\|author3=Merrill, Jeremy\|date3=February 1, 2016\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html \|title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate\|org3='']'' \|url4=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/ \|title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day \|author4=Germ, Erik \|org4='']'' \|date4=May 28, 2016}}
	{{Top25 \| place = \| week = ]}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|minthreadsleft = 2
	\|counter = 15
	\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}
	{{Friendly search suggestions}}
	{{Auto archiving notice\|bot=MiszaBot I \|age= \|units= 7 days}}
	{\| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
	! Page views for this article over the last 30 days
	\|-
	\| {{Graph:PageViews}} <BR>
	\|}

			\|action3=GAN
	== Rape lawsuit ==
			\|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1
			\|action3date= 17 September 2016
			\|action3result=failed
			\|action3oldid=739866707

			\|action4=GAN
			\|action4date=03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
			\|action4link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA2
			\|action4result=failed
			\|action4oldid=782109977

			\|action5=GAN
	Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. ] (]) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5date=08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
	:The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. ] (]) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA3
	::At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- ]] 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5result=failed
	:::There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.] (]) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action5oldid=870721866
	::::It ''is'' ] in that is only being covered by ] sources, outside of the mainstream.- ]] 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

	:::::No. There is indeed a lawsuit and . It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.] (]) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6=GAN
	:::::: --] (]) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6date=18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)] (]) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA4
	::::::::Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of ]... --] (]) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6result=failed
	:::::The lawsuit has now been covered by ] of '']'' . The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per ]. —] (]) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|action6oldid=906418948
	::::::I think it is notable.--] (]) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy ]. ] specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping ] in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... ] ] 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. ] ] 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from ] (), ] () and ] (). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. —] (]) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --] (]) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--] (]) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::(ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. --] (]) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

			\|action7 = FAC
	::::::::Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) is totally biased against Trump. Reliable? Funny. ] (]) 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|action7date = 2019-08-31
			\|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Donald Trump/archive1
			\|action7result = failed
			\|action7oldid = 913215099

			\|action8 = PR
	:Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. --] (]) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|action8date = 2020-04-29
	::Are you referring to ], by any chance? ] (]) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|action8link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1
			\|action8result= reviewed
			\|action8oldid = 953988039

			\|currentstatus=FGAN
	I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; ] and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). ] (]) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|topic=Politics and government
	:I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. ] (]) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
			}}
	::U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
			{{Press \| collapsed=yes
			\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
			\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
			\|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
			\|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page
			\|org3='']'' \|date3=February 1, 2016 \|author3=Merrill, Jeremy \|title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate
			\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html
			\|org4='']'' \|date4=May 28, 2016 \|author4=Germ, Erik \|title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day
			\|url4=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210205851/http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/
			\|org5='']'' \|date5=October 25, 2016 \|author5=Guo, Jeff \|title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws
			\|url5=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/
			\|org6='']'' \|date6=October 27, 2016\|author6=Alcantara, Chris \|title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages
			\|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/
			\|org7='']'' \|date7=December 21, 2016 \|author7=Staff Writer \|title7=Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed
			\|url7=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38394685
			\|org8='']'' \|date8=January 20, 2017 \|author8=Gartenberg, Chaim \|title8=Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet
			\|url8=http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/1/20/14336626/wikipedia-editors-edit-war-president-obama-trump
			\|org9='']'' \|date9=June 5, 2017 \|author9=Wyrich, Andrew \|title9=Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages
			\|url9=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/
			\|org10='']'' \|date10=22 November 2018 \|author10=Warren, Tom\|title10=Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis\|url10=https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/11/22/18108195/apple-siri-iphone-donald-trump-penis-wikipedia-fail-vandalism-editing
			\|org11='']'' \|date11=22 November 2018 \|author11=Blumenthal, Eli\|title11=Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump \|url11=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/11/22/siri-glitch-shows-male-genitalia-when-asking-questions-trump/2088884002/
			\|org12='']'' \|date12=23 November 2018 \|author12=Griffin, Andrew\|title12=Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit\|url12=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-siri-explicit-image-apple-wikipedia-edit-explained-a8648556.html
			\|org13='']'' \|date13=23 November 2018 \|author13=Gander, Kashmira\|title13=Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis\|url13=https://www.newsweek.com/someone-hacked-donald-trumps-wikipedia-page-replaced-photo-image-penis-1228571
			\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
			\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
			\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
			\|org17='']'' \|date17=March 7, 2020 \|author17=Pasternack, Alex \|title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation \|url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
			\|org18='']'' \|date18=May 21, 2020 \|author18=Flood, Brian \|title18=Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics \|url18=https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			\|org19='']'' \|date19=November 19, 2020 \|author19=Evon, Dan \|title19=Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page? \|url19=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
			\|org20='']'' \|date20=October 23, 2023 \|author20=Williams, Zoe \|title20=Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him \|url20=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him
			\|org21='']'' \|date21=May 31, 2024 \|author21=Hays, Gabriel \|title21=CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page \|url21=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-suggests-trump-conviction-mentioned-prominently-enough-former-presidents-wikipedia-page
			\|org22='']'' \|date22=June 4, 2024 \|author22=Harrison, Stephen \|title22=The Most Heated Debate on Trump’s Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages? \|url22=https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/donald-trump-felony-wikipedia-debate.html
			\|org23='']'' \|date23=October 17, 2024 \|author23=Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv \|title23=Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research \|url23=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
			}}
			{{All time pageviews\|233}}
			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
			{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022\|Jun 11 2023\|May 26 2024\|Jun 23 2024\|Jul 14 2024\|Jul 21 2024\|Oct 20 2024\|until\|Nov 24 2024}}
			{{Annual readership\|scale=log}}
			<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
			{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Skip to bottom}}
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
			{{Section sizes}}
			}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	: IBTimes does not agree that it "''is generally regarded as mainstream''", ]. See IBT Media, '''': "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." --] (]) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|algo = old(7d)
	: Well, is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. ] (]) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	::I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have ] , the Independent , the ] UK , the ] , the Daily Beast , AOL etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages has to.--] (]) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|counter = 186
	:::I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? ] (]) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	:::: Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.] (]) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	:::::Sure, but why not mention it with caveats? Plenty of reputable news sources have.--] (]) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	::::I did already add a mention of Johnson's lawsuit to ]'s article (he was also accused in the lawsuit). It doesn't seem to have stirred up any controversy, either. One would think that because Epstein is already a convicted sex offender, the barrier for inclusion of any further accusations should be much lower. ] (]) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			}}

			__TOC__
	Update: Several hours ago, another woman (Jill Harth) also went public with sexual assault accusations against Trump. Unlike Johnson, Harth was not a minor at the time. See and . ] (]) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

			== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
	:Obviously that's not as important as the size of his signature...--] (]) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
			{{/Current consensus}}


			== Racially charged ==
	*'''Do not include''', unless it gets a lot more widespread coverage than it has now. Currently it is being reported by a few foreign sources, a few not-exactly-neutral domestic sources, and lawnewz.com which broke the story. This is not enough coverage to include something with BLP implications like this. Maybe it will get there, if Trump fights back strongly (a practice which tends to attract more coverage than the original accusation). But a civil suit, from more than 20 years ago, withdrawn a few weeks after it was filed? Not enough. (Even if the coverage does increase it will be hard to present this information neutrally. The incidents supposedly happened in 1993. She filed a lawsuit four years later, 1997, in the midst of a separate business-related lawsuit by her partner against Trump; and she dropped her suit a few weeks later, after the partner's suit was settled. This is according to the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I find this timing sufficiently questionable to affect her credibility.) --] (]) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
			Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on ] says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? ] (]) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―] ] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―] ] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. ] (]) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
			:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―] ] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
	::I don't think it's up to us to act as detective and assess the credibility of allegations. I also don't see the problem with "foreign" sources.--] (]) 01:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

			This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	Another update: ], the chairman of the Travis County, TX Republican Party, has publicly expressed belief in the allegations and withdrawn his support of Trump as a result, instead switching to ]. This is already mentioned in Morrow's article. Given that Morrow was actually compared to Trump in the media following his election, this is somewhat ironic. ] (]) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
			:{{u\|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq\| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. – ] (]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Tracking lead size ==
	Notable and big stuff : i'll include it myself. ] (]) 23:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
			Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
	:], your addition has been reverted and revdelled. Add anything like that again and you will be blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
			\| content =
			— '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

			— '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
	Sorry but i may add that case, in a good manner and with sources. Ok? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:], you can add the allegation '''if consensus exists'''. You '''cannot''' treat the alleged rape as a fact (which is what you did). I strongly advise you to make sure any contentious info you add has consensus. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

			— '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
	I don't see consensus here for adding a reference to this subject.] (]) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
			\| content =
			— '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

			— '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
	:I don't see a coherent response to the issue.--] (]) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	::{{u\|MelanieN}}, {{u\|NeilN}}, etc, could we do something about the ? It makes for a toxic environment. Cheers. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::I will try to avoid provocative comments since it is offending people.--] (]) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::The comment wasn't directed at you (although the PA was). I already gave the offender a warning.] (]) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

			— '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
	== Infobox: Person or politician? ==

			— '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
	Should the infobox use person-infobox parameters or politician-infobox parameters?
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
			\| content =
			}}

			== Tracking article size ==
	A. ''Politician''
			] size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 15,818 – 421,592 – 103
			\| content =
			— 15,883 – 427,790 – {{0}}46

			— 15,708 – 430,095 – {{0}}12
	The infobox should use the "officeholder/politician" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

	~~1. The Trump article should be comparable to the Clinton article (~~), ~~and~~ ~~the~~ ~~Clinton~~ ~~infobox~~ ~~uses~~ ~~officeholder/politician parameters.~~		— 15,376 – 414,196 – {{0}}67
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 15,479 – 415,176 – {{0}}64
			\| content =
			— 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

			— 15,294 – 405,370 – {{0}}80
	2. ''If'' Trump has been more responsible for leading the Donald J Trump for President campaign than the Trump Organization business, his primary occupation is that of 'politician'.

			— 14,863 – 402,971 – 190
	B. ''Person''

			— 14,989 – 409,188 – 180
	The infobox should use the "person" infobox parameters. Reasoning:
			}}

			{{hidden
	1. Clinton is a former officeholder; Trump isn't.
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;

			\| header =
	2. ''If'' Trump has been more responsible for leading the Trump Organization business than the Donald J Trump for President campaign, his primary occupation is that of entrepreneur (or whatever), not politician.
			— 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

			\| content =
	C. ''Person parameters with some politician parameters''

	The infobox should use a person template with an embedded officeholder/politician module. Reasoning:

	1. From Trump's perspective, he studied business science, not political science; and his "usual or principal work" is in business, not politics.

	2. But from the general public's perspectives, Trump has more significance as a political nominee than as a business entrepreneur. So the infobox should include elements of both.

	___

	Some consequences:

	Prop A. Signature size: 128px. Website: Donald J Trump for President,

	Prop B. Signature size: 150px. Website: Trump Organization,

	Prop C: Signature size: 128px or 150px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, Trump Organization, or both

	-- 03:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

	* '''Support B or C'''. oppose A. The Donald J Trump for President campaign itself gives Trump's title and affiliation as "Chairman and President, The Trump Organization". --] (]) 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

	* Just '''B'''. No change from the current infobox. If he gets elected President, we can switch to a "politician/office holder" infobox, but at this point he is a businessperson and candidate; he has never held office, so what do you need the officeholder parameters for? Clinton, in contrast, has held both elected and appointive public office so the "officeholder" infobox is appropriate for her. --] (]) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

	*Support '''C''' Trump has engaged in many careers and his infobox should show that. --] (]) 17:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	== New image proposal ==

	I think we should use this image is the main in infobox because it's the best we have. I know it is from 2012 but he still looks the same. Clinton's image is from 2009. Your opinions?
	]
	] (]) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

	* He looks like ] in that photo. No. ] (]) 14:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	* There are probably some quality photos of Trump at the 2016 convention, so let's focus on new photos rather than re-hashing the old ones.] (]) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Seems ok to me, but I'm sure there are better and more recent photos that are free images. Remember, free images are always preferred over non-free image types. ] ] 18:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	::I've looked on Flickr and tried to find some but there aren't any from his campaign trails. If there were I would certainly propose it. ] (]) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Not sure''': That photo looks a little better, but it doesn't seem to be spontaneous like the one in the article. I don't think it is worth changing. ] (]) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
	*If this photo had been taken more recently I would have supported its use - maybe it should be used somewhere else in the article? As its four years out of date however I don't think it can be the main infobox picture. ] (]) 22:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

	*This is the one we should use: .--] (]) 00:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	*'''Weak support''' Shows his true skin color (orange) but is full of noise and if you look in the bottom left corner you can see an ambiguous object. However, still better than the current photo.--] (]) 01:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No''' It's not better than current image.] (]) 15:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	* '''No''' – Old picture, no better than current one either in subject's portrayal or in image quality. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

	== There is no reason to remove Politico ==

	The editor who wants Politico removed for being biased needs to make his case. I have not encountered any reliability or bias problems with Politico on the other politicians pages that I've edited. Until the editor has shown that Politico is not a reliable, non-partisan source, the Politico reference that was removed should be restored. The editor who made the accusation has made a series of ridiculous and inexplicable pro-Trump edits to this page, which casts further doubt on his accusation being in good faith. ] (]) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:We don't actually need the Politico reference. I've restored the material, without the Politico reference - and added the other editor's new material as well. --] (]) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:P.S. My philosophy, which is also the case in the section below this: If somebody objects to a source, don't go to the mat over it, just find another source. If the material is worth including here, there will always be multiple sources--] (]) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
	:: I see where you're coming from but I think it's a mistake to pander to editors who don't have a leg to stand on. It might encourage disingenuous claims, and make editors let disingenuous editors influence them as they consider contributing content. ] (]) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	: ]'s comment is worth considering, ]. Also consider that per ], a reliable source isn't required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Per ], it is supposed to be mainstream (at least if it's used to support a challenged statement in a BLP). And some editors would reasonably question whether Politico is mainstream or whether a particular article in Politico has been fact-checked.
	: These five sources are the most mainstream as measured by circulation: Reuters, AP, BBC News, Time, WSJ. And their news articles are usually fact-checked. (The opinion pieces are not.) --] (]) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 05:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: If the specific Politico article is bad, I think it's fair to delete it (and the same applies to any source, regardless of how respected the outlet happens to be). That was not the editor's complaint though. Nor did he complain that Politico wasn't mainstream enough. ] (]) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: Well, ], you have my recommendation: don't make Misplaced Pages into a ]. Don't make it a matter of "principle" or "pandering" or "encouraging disingenuous claims" over a trivial matter like one source where multiple sources are available, or the size of a signature. These political pages are charged enough as it is without going to war over something where perfectly acceptable alternatives are available. --] (]) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::The minuscule sz the sig was shrunk to wasn't "a trivial matter" in my view, obviously. ] obviously disagree. (OK. So when my opinion differs from yours, re anything, starting now, it's OK then that I publicly characterize to others that your interest is in trivia and your opinion is trivial!? Good one!) Perhaps you s/ hat that thread and label the hat "Trivia"!? (Never mind two editors relentlessly bashed me over the default long-standing size for no valid reasons, mocked and ridiculed, extending the thread without end. And opened a WP:EWN. And reverted almost daily.) ] (]) 08:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I'm one of the two editors mentioned by ]. I ought to acknowledge that what he says here is not wholly unmerited, ].
	:::: The matter was resolved. No blood, no foul. Let's not bring it up again.
	:::: I otherwise agree with your reply to ]'s comment. --] (]) 10:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: My apologies. Clearly the signature issue wasn't trivial to those engaged in it. and I shouldn't have brought it up because it blurred my point: not to take a stand about things that DON'T really matter. --] (]) 14:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks. ] (]) 01:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	I really don't think Politico is sufficiently reliable for BLPs. Particularly in the case of the US election. If it wasn't a BLP issue I'd be indifferent but not in this case.] (]) 04:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Housing discrimination case ==

	{{ping\|CFredkin}} You removed this sentence from the article: ''According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."'' - because you said the source, a book by a former employee, was unreliable. Let me suggest the following sources instead: , , . Those are enough to make a large section, but I think we can get by with a sentence or two. That is, unless you think it deserves a larger airing. --] (]) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	: The suit was settled without a finding of guilt on the part of the Trump Organization, and there is no evidence that Trump himself was personally involved. I believe this sort of content is usually covered as a footnote.] (]) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	: Objection, Your Honor! The term "''colored''" is found in the Post story but not in the Times story or the Justice Department press release (which relates to "emotional-support animals"). Also, a Justice Department press release generally isn't used as a reliable source. (For a major exception, see ] regarding data compilations.)
	: In this case, plaintiff Justice Department's position was never upheld by a court; and the Post mentions that it was never upheld by a court. So we'd have to include that clarification in our article.
	: In common-law countries like the U.S. (not France), one attorney's allegations are as authoritative as another attorney's -- including a government attorney's. Here, defendant Trump's attorney made allegations about the plaintiff, and the Post reported them. So we'd have no reason not to include at least one of them in our article too. --] (]) 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	: As a short-term compromise, we could (and probably should!) cite the Times article as a source for the material about Trump's having received prominent media exposure for decades. (One of the captions says, "Readers of The Times have known him for 42 years.") --] (]) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	:: I see no reason not to report what the Justice Department said. Certainly it is only an allegation but that is how we report it. ] (]) 04:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: No offense, ], but the reason we never report allegations as being more than allegations has nothing to do with ]...
	::: There seem to be three questions here. (1) Should we act as a 'conduit' for the claim that was alleged? (2) If so, should we act as a conduit for the counterclaim that was alleged? (3) And if so, should we mention that neither the claim nor the counterclaim was upheld by a court?
	::: For the reasons given, I would say "no"; "(if so, yes)"; and "(if so, yes)". --] (]) 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::We decide whether anything belongs in Misplaced Pages by ]: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
	::::Multiple ]s have reported the Justice Department allegations, so it's a significant viewpoint and according to ] should be fairly represented in the article.
	::::So according to Misplaced Pages policies your answer to question (1) is "Yes."
	::::Also according to ] we are required to represent all sides.
	::::So according to Misplaced Pages policies your answer to question (2) is "Yes."
	::::I assume Trump's advocates have said in some ] that the claim wasn't upheld in court.
	::::So according to Misplaced Pages policies your answer to question (3) is "Yes."
	::::(BTW, most lawsuits are settled without a judicial determination in the courts. ]s regularly report the allegations made in court. Using court records is a complete defense against libel. I would like to know any Misplaced Pages policies that excludes them.)--] (]) 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	::::: You brought up an important point, ]: "''Using court records is a complete defense against libel.''" True in some states -- but not in others.
	:::::: "The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article... Just because someone else said it does not mean that a news organization cannot be sued for republishing it..."
	:::::: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, ''''.
	::::: Here's my personal read on Trump's viewpoint, based on the ''Post'' and ''Times'' stories:
	::::: "'What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,' Trump wrote." Trump reportedly believed that renting to welfare cases would cause his mostly lower- and middle-income tenants (both white and black) to flee. But he was "satisfied that the agreement did not 'compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant'." --] (]) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::: Dervorguilla, no offense taken, but I never mentioned V. Certainly we should not report anything unless it is sourced but whether we report it depends on weight. Mentioning an allegation is not the same thing as acting as a conduit for it, unless we state the allegation as fact. We have articles for example about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but that does not mean we endorse them. ] (]) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: True, we're not endorsing them, ], just mentioning them. But that in itself can amount to republishing. From AP, ''Legal Principles of Publication'':
	:::::: "Liability for republication: the 'conduit' fallacy.- A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement was actually made, accurately transcribed, and clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so."
	::::: When we were children, we understood this principle intuitively (as it applies to retelling slanderous allegations about other children). It takes a semester or two of expository writing to make us forget.
	::::: Happily, the principle does ''not'' apply here (as far as I know). No need to call Saul!!! --] (]) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::I'm sorry I brought up libel, since it's turned into a distraction. But you have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook:
	:::::::Fair report
	:::::::Libelous statements made by others in certain settings often are conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to material from official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings, city council meetings and grand jury deliberations. In most states, accurate reports of arrests, civil and criminal trials and official statements made to, by and about law enforcement officials are privileged....
	::::::Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines as I stated above say that anything that is reported by multiple ]s belongs in the article, along with opposing viewpoints. Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines govern, not your personal opinion of fairness or whether "allegations" belong. Allegations belong in Misplaced Pages if they are repeated by multiple ]s. You have not shown that the deletion is justified under Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines.
	::::::Roy Cohen in his press statements, by ignoring the significant Justice Department charges, deceptively made it look as if the issue was discrimination against welfare recipients, rather than discrimination against blacks. The way this entry is edited now, we also deceptively make it look as if the issue was welfare recipients, not blacks. To stop being deceptive, we must state the main charges against Trump: That he discriminated against blacks.
	::::::I think we have a consensus to restore it. Is there anyone other than ] who wants to delete it? If so, explain how that decision is jusitfied by Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. Otherwise I'm going to put it back. --13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::: ], you said: "''We ... deceptively make... To stop being deceptive, we must state ...''" I for one categorically deny your accusation that I or the other editors here have been deceiving people.
	::::::::: "''You have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook''". Good point. I should have expanded the quote to include related material from the "Fair Report" section:
	:::::::::: ''Fair report''. In most states, accurate reports of ... trials ... are privileged. Reports of this nature must be accurate and fair in order for the reporter to invoke the fair-report privilege...
	::::::::: Not just accurate. Accurate and fair.
	::::::::: And as you observed, the information must be reported "''in good faith''". Here the term "good-faith" excludes conduct that "violates community standards of ... fairness or reasonableness". ''Black's Law Dictionary.'' --] (]) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::::::The housing case is more fully covered at ]. See ]. Therefore, we don't need to list all the details here about things he was never found guilty of. So it appears that CFredkin and myself are two additional editors who think this is inappropriate for the main text of this BLP.] (]) 14:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::No, we don't have consensus yet. Here is what used to be in the article: ''Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the ] of violations of the ] in the operation of 39 buildings. According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." '' The question is whether to include the second sentence; we still have the first sentence, which says the Justice Department sued the Trumps for fair housing violations. That may be enough; if we are going to go on to detail what Justice said, we would also have to detail what the Trumps said and the item would become overly long. After reading the extensive discussion here, I think we should keep just the first sentence, and replace the book source with one of the sources I listed at the beginning of this discussion. --] (]) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::I generally agree. But, of course, we can't say that he was accused without indicating that there was never any conviction (Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt).] (]) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::We could add "the case was settled out of court". I think (without taking the time to look) that the sources I proposed do say that much. If people want more detail than that, they can go the "legal cases" article. --] (]) 14:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}], reporting allegations made in official court records is not libellous. Newspapers routinely report criminal charges made against people ''before'' final judgment. As a general rule, we are fairly safe using mainstream media as sources, because they take great care to avoid libel. ] (]) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:True, they report when charges are filed, before the case is closed. But AFTER the case is closed, they generally mention the outcome as well as the charges. The sources I listed above all say the case was settled. --] (]) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::In scientific articles, ] applies: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links"
	::I think the same rule applies in articles like this. You know that most readers will not follow the links, either to a footnote with expanded text or to a "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" article (which is a ] if you remove all the unfavorable information in the original article and move it to the forked article.)
	::It's not enough to say that "the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings," without also giving the specific violations: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." That's a serious charge -- not offering apartments to black people. These specific violations are supported by multiple ], which is the criteria for including information in a Misplaced Pages article. The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information. This was the underlying violation. If you don't know that you don't know what the case was about. It's '''misleading''' to talk about the welfare issue without revealing that the original charge was for refusing to rent to black people. If you're so worried about becoming overly long then take out the reference to welfare recipients. --] (]) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::''" The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information"''. The thing is, that is NOT a fact - it is an allegation. Denied by the Trumps, and never established as fact in a court of law. At the very least, if we include the disputed sentence, we should also add a sentence saying "The Trumps strongly denied the accusations, and the case was settled out of court." --] (]) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::Oh, now I see the sentence you are referring to. I missed it earlier. It follows the others and says ''"Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.), Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.""'' With that already in the article, we certainly could include Justice's allegations. Both or neither. --] (]) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::], are you saying that we should not mention the '''allegations''' of not renting to blacks after the case is settled, even though the allegations were announced by the Justice Department, are in the public record, and were (and still are) widely reported in ]?
	::::What reason under Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines do you have for not including them?
	::::For Misplaced Pages, the criteria for including a fact is that it has been widely reported in ]. That's one of the Five Pillars ] of Misplaced Pages. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."
	::::What about the Bill Cosby case https://en.wikipedia.org/Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations Most of that is allegations that were not resolved in court and settled. Should Misplaced Pages eliminate all the Bill Cosby allegations? --] (]) 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I am saying that we ''can'' include the Justice allegation sentence, provided we also have the "Trump denial and out of court settlement" sentence. We currently do have that sentence, so I would support restoring the Justice allegations (with a better source). --] (]) 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::], here's the sentence at issue: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored.""
	::::::This has been reported by multiple ]s.
	::::::I think that sentence belongs in the article, because of the multiple ]. Do you object? --] (]) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Actually the sentence at issue is ''" '''According to the Justice Department,''' the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored.""''. I agree with including it as long as the bolded portion is also included. --] (]) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::I object to including it because the place for such stuff that was never proved and never admitted is (if anywhere at Misplaced Pages) at ]. Lots of people have accused Trump of lots of things, but I think this main biography does not have room for the accusations that didn't pan out. Just like counterpart Democratic BLPs. The goal here has been made quite clear by omission of "according to the Justuce Department", but even inclusion of that phrase is misleading since the Justice Department later backed off (without even any allegation of extreme carelessness).] (]) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::], the criteria for including something in Misplaced Pages is ] and ], it is not whether something was proved by a court decision or some other level of evidence that you demand. What are the specific Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines that say that it should be removed?
	:::::::::The Bill Cosby entry contains "stuff that was never proved" in court and never will be because of the statute of limitations. I think that ] and ] is enough to leave it in. Do you think Misplaced Pages rules require us to delete that stuff from the Bill Cosby article? --] (]) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I'll say yet again, I have no objection to including these particular details in Misplaced Pages. See ] and see ].] (]) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::::What specifically does ] say that would require us to delete the sentence, "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" from this article and move it to ]? --] (]) 21:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::This article "should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."] (]) 03:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::Let me be clearer in my opinion: if we do not re-add the "According to the Justice Department" sentence, then we should delete the sentence that follows it, the one that begins "After an unsuccessful countersuit..." We can't include a full rebuttal and quote from Trump, if we don't give the Justice Department's position as well. Both or neither. --] (]) 22:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I'm ok with removing the sentence beginning "After an unsuccessful countersuit...".] (]) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::I'm ok with that too.] (]) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Once again, I want to include in the main Donald Trump article the following sentence, based on multiple ]: "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" Can anyone give a reason '''based on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines''' why this sentence should not go back in to the main article? What is the specific text of the guidelines? --] (]) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}Here are four relevant policy reasons, ].

	''']''' (reviewed by ]).

	''']''', applying ] to isolated events of lesser overall significance to a topic. The ''Times'' story itself assigns 390 words to a 1978 decision about the NY convention center but only 343 words to the fair-housing suit. Accordingly the suit <u>must be treated as being</u> of lesser overall significance. (It was headlined in only 1 front-page story; the decision, in 2.)

	''']'''. Nutshell: "Articles must not ''take'' sides, but should ''explain'' the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."

	''']''', as it would apply to "editors' legitimate concerns" about fairness and reasonableness. --] (]) 06:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 11:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:So, Dervorguilla, if you don't want to include this sentence, are you OK with deleting the sentence that follows ("After an unsuccessful countersuit") that presents the Trump's position on the case? IMO we can't give Trump a platform without also giving Justice a platform, per Balance aspects. --] (]) 06:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	::I have removed the sentence that began "After an unsuccessful countersuit...." since I'm the one who inserted it, and no one has objected to removing it.] (]) 11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	<span id="dn"></span>
	::: I'm removing the verbiage about Trump's having marked applications provided by blacks with the letter "C" for "colored". (The applications provided by the Urban League were likewise marked, albeit with a more politically appropriate acronym.)
	::: Please advise whether the passage below falls short of any ], ], and ] requirements, and whether (in your personal opinion) it sounds less than fair and reasonable.
	:::: Trump first came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the ] by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant.
	:::: Trump drew greater attention in 1978 when the city awarded him the contract to design and build the ], after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for construction.
	::: --] (]) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::That's acceptable to me. As long as it says specifically, "refusing to rent to blacks."--] (]) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	::::: Text integrated into article after adding 49-word ref quote and correcting own error in graf 2.
	:::::: ... He came to public attention in 1973 when the ] were violating the ] by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant.<ref name="LookingBack">{{cite news \|last=Dunlap \|first=David \|date=July 30, 2015 \|title=1973: Meet Donald Trump \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ \|dead-url=no \|newspaper=] \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20150731123300/http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ \|archive-date=2015-07-03 \|quote=Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not “compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant”. ... New York City was determined to build a convention center... Trump held an option on one of the possible sites... }}</ref> ...
	:::::: Trump drew greater public attention in 1978 when the city chose his site as the location for its ], after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the construction project.<ref name="LookingBack" />
	{{reflist}}
	::::: I also removed 3 questionable sources: 1 juvenile literature and 2 nonmainstream newspapers (] and ]). --] (]) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Responding to by ] ("''Removing statement not supported by source''"), I'm adding a source and clarifying the statement.
	:: ... He came to public attention in 1973 when the ] were violating the ] by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings.<ref name="LookingBack">{{cite news \|last=Dunlap \|first=David \|date=July 30, 2015 \|title=1973: Meet Donald Trump \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ \|dead-url=no \|newspaper=] \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20150731123300/http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ \|archive-date=2015-07-03 \|quote=Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not ‘compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.’ ... New York City was determined to build a convention center... Trump held an option on one of the possible sites... }}</ref> The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were legally discriminating based on welfare status, not race.<ref name="kranish">{{cite news \|last1=Kranish \|first1=Michael \|last2=O'Harrow \|first2=Robert \|date=January 23, 2016 \|title=Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html \|newspaper=] \|quote=Trump the company wanted to avoid renting apartments to welfare recipients of any color but never discriminated based on race. ... Civil rights groups in the city viewed the ... company as just one example of a nationwide problem... But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact... }}</ref> Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against qualified applicants.<ref name="LookingBack" /> The ] later said that civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".<ref name="kranish" />
	{{reflist}}
	I'm also adding material about the Trumps' getting targeted because they were "big names" in comparison to other real-estate companies of concern to civil-rights groups. (So says the former chair of thecity's Human Rights Commission.)

	This passage actually might work better as the corresponding ref quote:
	:: 2. ^ "Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’"
	--] (]) 08:04, 26

	: Trump doesn't appear to use the word "discriminated" in the sources I've seen. I also think it would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio.] (]) 15:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

	:: Your're right on both counts, ]!! Many thanks, and I've edited the text accordingly to address your concerns. (This new draft version is actually shorter than the current version.)
	:::: In 1971, Trump moved to Manhattan, where he took part in larger construction projects and used attractive architectural design to win public recognition. He drew wider attention in 1973 when the ] were violating the ] by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The allegations were never proven. The Trumps ultimately signed an agreement to ensure that they would not discriminate against qualified applicants. The ] later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names". He received a ] fee on the property sale.
	:: 189 words -> 174 words. --] (]) 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	<span id="fin"></span>
	::: Your new proposal still makes it sounds like Trump agreed that he may have been discriminating against qualified applicants. The current language sounds fine to me. I'm not sure what your concern is in proposing changes.] (]) 15:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::: I admit to your allegation, ], and I agree to revise accordingly. :)
	:::: This draft ("D") should take care of it.
	:::::: In 1971, Trump moved to Manhattan, where he took part in larger construction projects and used attractive architectural design to win public recognition. He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the ] were violating the ] by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings. Ultimately the parties signed an agreement under which the Trumps would make no admission of wrongdoing and the ] would present qualified minority applicants for vacancies in some buildings.<ref name="LookingBack">{{cite news \|last=Dunlap \|first=David \|date=July 30, 2015 \|title=1973: Meet Donald Trump \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ \|dead-url=no \|newspaper=] \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20150731123300/http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ \|archive-date=2015-07-03 \|quote=Trump Management ... was also to allow the league to present qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy... Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not ‘compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.’ }}</ref> The ] later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".<ref name="kranish">{{cite news \|last1=Kranish \|first1=Michael \|last2=O'Harrow \|first2=Robert \|date=January 23, 2016 \|title=Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html \|newspaper=] \|quote=Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’ }}</ref>
	:::::: By 1973, Trump was president of the Trump Organization and oversaw the company's 14,000 apartments across Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. In 1978 the city selected his ] site as the location for its ], after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the project.<ref name="LookingBack" /> He received a ] fee on the property sale.
	{{reflist}}
	:::: "''I'm not sure what your concern is in proposing changes.''" My and four other editors' several concerns are given in the discussion above. --] (]) 01:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: Your latest proposal looks fine to me, but I think the following sentence should be excluded as undue: The ] later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".] (]) 04:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Done. --] (]) 05:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}I have re-phased a little bit:

	"He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the <s>]</s> <strong>] they</strong> were violating the ] by <strong>allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments</strong> <s>refusing to rent to blacks</s> in 39 residential buildings<strong>, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.</strong> Ultimately <s>the parties</s> <strong>DOJ and the Trumps</strong> signed an agreement under which the Trumps <s>would make</s> <strong>made</strong> no admission of wrongdoing<strong>,</strong> and <strong>under which</strong> <strike>the ] would present</s> qualified minority applicants <s>for vacancies in some buildings</s> <strong>would be presented by the ]."</strong>

	The previous language was somewhat problematic for several reasons. '''''First''''', saying that DOJ "alleged" that refusing to rent to blacks amounted to a violation of law could easily be misunderstood as taking for granted that such a racial refusal occurred as a factual matter, and as merely saying that the only thing "alleged" by DOJ was that this undisputed set of facts amounted to a violation of the law. '''''Second''''', if we give DOJ's argument, we ought to include the Trumps' argument. '''''Third''''', saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to blacks is much too simplistic, and instead DOJ asserted discrimination which disfavored blacks, as opposed to a blanket racist ban. '''''Fourth''''', saying that the "parties" signed is ambiguous about whether DOJ signed, which they did. The rest of the edits are mainly for conciseness and flow.] (]) 13:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

	: In revision , ] substituted "''...DOJ and the Trumps signed an agreement...''" for "...the parties signed an agreement...", explaining "''DOJ signed the agreement''". But the source actually says, "the Trump Management Corporation reached an agreement with the Federal Government..." -- not, the Trumps and the DOJ. Per ], the source must make the statement ''explicitly''.
	: ] made an additional six edits, explaining, "''insert 'allegedly', rephrase a little for clarity, flow, conciseness''"; "''tweak pipe link''"; "''conciser''"; "''both sides ought to be given''"; and "''No one claims the Trumps refused to rent to black people. Rather, the issue was discrimination, and whether blacks were disproportionately unable to rent.''"
	: But the plaintiff alleged ("charged") in its pleading ("allegations"), not "''argued''" in its (oral or closing) argument. It charged the defendants with discriminating, not with "''allegedly discriminating''". And both sources (the ''Times'' and the ''Post'') say the government claimed the defendants were refusing to rent to black people. "The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color’".
	: The original text did give both sides -- as manifested in the final agreement (which both sides agreed was fair).
	: In the editor's comment above, he claims (1) that "''saying that DOJ 'alleged' that refusing to rent to blacks amounted to a violation of law could easily be misunderstood as taking for granted that such a racial refusal occurred as a factual matter"''. But the terms 'alleged that' and 'argued that' appear to be Standard English terms easily understood in this context; moreover, both sources use the term "alleged". Neither source uses the term "''argued''". He claims (2) that "''If we give DOJ's argument, we ought to include the Trumps' argument.''" But we give the plaintiff's allegations, not its argument. Trump's answer (not his argument) isn't given because the sources mention it only in passing. He claims (3) that "''saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to blacks is much too simplistic''". Perhaps, but that's what the sources say. The editor claims (4) that "''saying that the 'parties' signed is ambiguous about whether DOJ signed, which they did''". But the sources actually say that the "government" signed, not the "DOJ". And the editor says, "''The rest of the edits are mainly for conciseness and flow.''" But the text was more concise before the revision (62 words rather than 78). --] (]) 19:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	<span id="con"></span>
	{{od}}I am glad to say "charged" instead of "argued" even though it doesn't make much difference to a lay reader and either way is accurate. And I'm glad to say that the Trumps' company and federal officials signed, instead of the Trumps and DOJ, but again it doesn't make much difference to a lay reader and either way is accurate. The material now reads as follows:
	{{cquote\| He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League.}}
	If anyone thinks this is misleading in any way, by all means please say so. If anyone would like it shorter, I think we can remove "in 39 residential buildings" without removing anything very significant. Saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to black people could easily be misunderstood to mean that they allegedly did not rent to '''''any''''' black people, which is far from accurate. The allegation was that they discriminated against black people, by making the application process more difficult but not impossible, steering black people into different apartments, etc. If we cannot agree on language, then the best thing might be to very briefly mention the matter here, and let readers get more details at ].] (]) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	: I'm substituting the for the current text per ].
	: A firm consensus was formed at . An editor began changing the consensus text in the article at . At , he proposed changing the consensus at Talk.
	: Proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. And an editor who ignores a discussion and consensus and continues editing or reverting disputed material may be engaging in ]. (See ] policy.)
	: "''If anyone thinks this is misleading in any way, by all means please say so.''" The other interested editors have already participated in the consensus discussion, so they may not respond to this or further requests. (].)
	: Just sayin'. --] (]) 05:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::The changes I made were improvements to the version you have just restored. Those improvements were never rejected by other editors, nor have you given any intelligible reason for opposing them. Instead, you merely threaten sanctions if your preferred version is altered. I do not find your editing style constructive ''at all'', and I doubt other editors will either. Please try cooperation and responsiveness instead of confrontation and edit-warring. Thanks.] (])

	::: After reading ]'s , I have to say I agree with his concerns. I think his proposed edits are an improvement to the text.] (]) 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::: "''...I think his proposed edits are an improvement...''" Thank you for contributing to the discussion, ]. ] made a total of six changes to the consensus text over the full . Which edit do you think was the greatest improvement?
	:::: "Except in cases affected by content ], most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position." (].) --] (]) 16:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::An "all-or-nothing position" such as reverting every single change I have proposed with minimal-to-no explanation except you liked it better before?] (]) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: I think this phrase is an improvement: "...the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed."] (]) 16:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Now I understand your concern!! I support part of your proposed revision but see a problem with the other part -- the statement that "''the Trumps claimed''" they were "''merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients''". According to the ''Times'', Trump maintained that he was "screening out welfare recipients" -- meaning, welfare recipients as a class. ("Trump accused the Justice Department of singling out his corporation ... because the government was trying to force it to rent to welfare recipients".)
	:::::: Proposed compromise text:
	::::::: "...the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against black applicants for housing, thereby violating the ]. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The ] later acknowledged that the Trumps had been targeted because they "were big names".
	:::::: I think the additional text is factual extrajudicial evidence that could be helpful to readers who may question Trump's truthfulness in this whole matter. --] (]) 19:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: I think you raise a good point above. But instead of making a wholesale change to the language, I'd like to propose that we just remove "unqualified" from the previous proposal. So it would read as follows: "...the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed." Hopefully this works for you... Thanks.] (]) 19:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::Sounds okay to me.] (]) 19:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Here is the as edited by ]:
	: He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the ] were violating the ] by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings.
	Here is the proposed 47-word revision by ]:
	: He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the ] were violating the ] by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.
	] had elsewhere raised a reasonable concern that a proposal "''makes it sounds like Trump agreed that he may have been discriminating against qualified applicants.''" Happily, neither of these two texts does so. He had also raised a reasonable concern about : "''It would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio.''"

	I accordingly support the current 32-word text and oppose the 47-word text. --] (]) 02:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

	===BLP concerns===
	], I have said that I support the 47-word text. I have given numerous reasons, none of which you have addressed. Your only stated reason for opposing it is that 47 words is too long. But yesterday you proposed a 64-word text:
	{{cquote\|He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against black applicants for housing, thereby violating the ]. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The ] later acknowledged that the Trumps had been targeted because they "were big names".}}
	I repeat that I strongly support the 47-word text, and I strongly believe that the 32-word text violates ]. Since you have not addressed any of the specific reasons, I will briefly repeat the main ones now.
	*(1) The 32-word text omits the Trumps' explanation of their actions (screening out welfare recipients) and instead only gives the government's accusation.
	*(2) The 32-word text does not properly describe the government's position; the government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent" to all black people, but rather that the Trumps discriminated in less blatant ways (e.g. by allegedly making application procedures more difficult but not impossible for black people, and by allegedly steering black people toward different properties owned by the Trumps).
	*(3) The 32-word text says "by refusing to rent" without including the word "allegedly" in that phrase, which many of our readers will see as a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice that the government's statement of facts was correct.<br />
	Again, your only response has been that the 47-word text is too long, which completely disregards the many very serious flaws pointed out in the 32-word text, disregards your own recent advocacy of a 64-word text, and also disregards my statement above that I'd be happy to remove the unnecessary words "in 39 residential buildings" in the 47-word text. ] requires that "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." You have sought to overstate the accusations, and understate the defense against those accusations, which is irresponsible and incautious. Per ], "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Up to 25 July material about racism into this section, the pertinent material in this BLP was as follows: "Trump ] when the Trump Organization was accused by the ] (DOJ) of violations of the ] in the operation of 39 buildings. Several years later the Trump Organization was again in court for violating terms of a settlement with DOJ; Trump denied the charges and there is no indication that he was found guilty." I intend to restore that pre-July 26 version until a consensus forms that the BLP concerns have been addressed.] (]) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

	: Below are my replies to the concerns you've helpfully listed, ].
	:   ('''1''') ''The 32-word text omits the Trumps' explanation of their actions (screening out welfare recipients) ...''
	: That's the explanation they gave the press. Here's the explanation they gave the court:
	::: "We wanted tenants who we could be sure would pay the rent ... and who met our requirement of having an income at least four times the rent."
	: Client's Communication to Attorney Cohn, 1973, in Trump, '''', at 98.
	:   ('''2''') ''...The government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent..."''
	: Actually, says the government ''did'' suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent":
	:: "The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color’ ..."
	: So does :
	:: "The Justice Department then issued a news release that said the Trumps violated the law ‘by refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks’ ..."
	:   ('''3''') ''The 32-word text says "by refusing to rent" without including the word "allegedly"...''
	: The text does include the word "''allegedly''" -- in its verbal form, "allege". ("The Justice Department alleged...") --] (]) 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your replies, ]. I'll respond. '''(1)''' You have opposed including both the explanation the Trumps gave the press, and also the explanation the Trumps gave the court, and instead have supported only giving the government's explanation. That is not neutral or fair. Moreover, in this instance, there is nothing inconsistent between what Trump told the press and what Trump told the court, given that screening out welfare recipients would be roughly equivalent to ensuring tenants could pay the rent and would have an income at least four times the rent. Surely, there must be a way to phrase the Trumps' position about this so that we could present it to readers, instead of only presenting the governments' unrebutted accusation. But, if too many words would be needed, then we could put it at the sub-article and maintain the status quo at this article. Regarding '''(2)''', when the government said "refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks" do you think the government meant ''all'' blacks or ''some'' blacks? The way you want to phrase it will lead many of our readers to assume "all" blacks, whereas the way I've proposed will not cause some readers to make that assumption. It would be misleading for us to give some readers the idea that the government meant all blacks, if in fact there is no reason for us to think the government meant that. It would be better for us to avoid conveying as much potential misunderstanding as possible on such an inflammatory subject. Moving along to '''(3)''', suppose a Misplaced Pages article said this: "The prosecutor alleged that Melania violated a local ordinance when she stood on her head in the middle of Time Square...." This would be very poor wording because it suggests in Misplaced Pages's voice that Melania did in fact stand on her head, and that the prosecutor alleges doing so was prohibited by an ordinance; it would be much more clear and fair to say in a Misplaced Pages article "The prosecutor charged that Melania violated a local ordinance when she allegedly stood on her head in the middle of Time Square...." That way readers would not understand us to be saying that she did in fact stand on her head. Same thing with Trump and this 1973 incident.] (]) 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: I agree in part with your points 1 and 3, ].
	:::: (1) ''You have opposed including both the explanation the Trumps gave the press, and also the explanation the Trumps gave the court...''
	::: Yes, I included only the allegations that the government gave the court, not the answers that Trump gave the court. Those are documented in ''The Art of the Deal'' -- and I'd be more than happy to add them (and the source) to the consensus text.
	:::: (2) ''...When the government said "refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks" do you think the government meant all blacks or some blacks?''
	::: Both. I think the government was asserting that Trump was refusing to rent to all blacks in some buildings -- but not to all blacks in all buildings. See Kranish ("There were no black tenants at Lincoln Shore Apartments").
	::: I should point out that the sources say that at the time, most big landlords were discriminating against blacks. Trump was a very big landlord. According to one source, that's why the government targeted him in particular. (The data suggest he may have been discriminating less than the average big landlord.)
	:::: (3) ''...It would be much more clear and fair to say ... "The prosecutor charged that'' ''violated a'' ''when'' ''allegedly'' ''."''
	::: A prosecutor charges a defendant with doing something, not with "''allegedly''" doing something. Otherwise you're absolutely correct. I'd be more than happy to reword the consensus text accordingly. "...The Justice Department alleged that they were refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act."
	::: Would you support these two proposed changes to the consensus text? --] (]) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}} In view of your comments, I'd support modifying the version proposed by CFredkin to read as follows:
	{{cquote\|He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act, rather than merely screening out people based upon low income as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League.}}
	The government was not alleging a blanket refusal to rent to black people, if 38 out of 39 Trump buildings had black tenants, so we should not lead some readers to assume that the Trumps refused to rent to all black people.
	] (]) 23:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	: ''If'' the 38 had black tenants. --] (]) 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I have seen no indication otherwise. Anyway, I will now go ahead and insert the blockquoted material since you haven't objected to it. If you don't think it's perfect, perhaps we can discuss how to improve it without an edit-war. Cheers.] (]) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::: We're definitely getting somewhere, ]. How does this look?{{cquote\|He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the ] were refusing to rent residential units in some buildings to some applicants because they were black, rather than because their adjusted incomes were too low, as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps and the government signed an agreement under which the ] would present qualified minority applicants for some vacancies, while the Trumps made no admission of any wrongdoing.}}
	::: May still need some work. Let me know your thoughts. --] (]) 03:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	== Editor removes Trump's own clarification of position, editor goes with his own preferred position ==

	I see absolutely no reason why ThiefofBagdad deleted this text: "Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants.<ref name=":30">{{Cite web\|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/trump-i-m-running-against-hillary-not-rest-world-n615581\|title=Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'\|access-date=2016-07-24}}</ref> He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory."<ref name=":30" />"

	Given the confusion surrounding Trump's Muslim ban and his failure to put out a specific plan, it's absolutely essential that this context be included. It's absolutely unacceptable for ThiefofBagdad to decide which of the numerous positions Trump has proposed on this issue should be included and which not. I ask for this content to be restored. ] (]) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{reflist}}
	:Thank you, Snooganssnoogan. I was about to write about this myself. ] has been making a lot of changes based on their own interpretation. For example, they changed "countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States" to "countries that have been compromised by terrorism", saying that was the wording Trump used in his acceptance speech. When I reverted to the previous consensus-approved version, they restored their own version, saying ''"Trump has changed his views on many things, which is why we've decided to stick with what he said in his RNC acceptance speech. Also, he said it's an "expansion", then continued to contradict himself. We're sticking with what was said at the RNC."'' Who is "we" and when did "we" decide that? Not on this page, where such decisions need to be made. ThiefOfBagdad did not participate at all in the discussions here. ThiefOfBagdad, I call your attention to the Discretionary Sanctions on this page, and I remind you that you cannot just insist on your own version and ignore consensus. Repeated reverting, or reinsertion of disputed material, can be a blockable offense at an article which is under Discretionary Sanctions. You must reach consensus on the talk page, and not keep reverting in the meantime. --] (]) 20:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::P.S. I see that they added an invisible comment saying ''"DO NOT use "Muslim ban". Trump has adapted his immigration plan. The lead is no place for scrapped or conflicting proposals made by candidates and it's already discussed below in the relevant section."''. I deleted it, as being one person's opinion and not consensus-based. --] (]) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::My names seems to have been revoked here. In accordance with the ] policy, I felt completely in my right as a regular editor of Trump's page to undo Snooganssnoogans' edit. Trump, in his RNC acceptance speech (watched by nearly 35 million people), said: "We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place." The "vetting mechanisms" part can be hard to understanding for some readers, so the lead states Trump wants to "suspend immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." I think it's hard for anyone to disagree up to this point.

	:::Now, Trump went on today and was asked if his new statment should be interpreted as a 'rollback' from his Muslim ban. Famously, Trump has trouble admitting to his own faults (he has admitted that himself) and obviously he didn't say it should be interpreted as a 'rollback', so he said 'you could say it's an expansion'. Yes, you could say that, but that's obviously not what it is. Why not? Because seconds later he states: 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. It's clear the Muslim ban is not happening, and it's been scrapped for a while now. Back in June, Trump gave a speech in which he said: "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." Yes, the plan has ''again'' changed slightly since then, but the Muslim ban has been scrapped for a while now. Yes, Trump's words can be confusing, and if taken directly without context from a headline, they can be misinterpreted. As of now, even his own campaign has refused to acknowledge any further plans for a "Muslim ban". I hope I've made myself clear and I hope we can finally put aside this "Muslim ban" that was proposed ''last year'' and is now rather clearly scrapped. ] (]) 21:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: It’s amazing to read your editing habits. You’re basically re-interpreting Trump’s statements and intentions in a way where you don’t take him at his word. If Trump says something, use his direct quotes, not your strange re-interpretations. If Trump says "until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place”, use that. Don’t use your guess as to what that refers to. ] (]) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Regarding the Muslim ban proposals, how do you know if it’s an expansion or rollback? It’s Trump’s policy, let the man speak for himself. For all we know, Trump sees this as a more enforceable and legitimate way to exclude Muslims (by prohibiting immigration from certain states, which would be constitutional AFAIK). That’s my interpretation of this. The difference between you and me is that I don’t add my guess as to what he’s truly saying, I add what the man says and let the readers decide for themselves. That’s what editors are supposed to do. ] (]) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::: Clearly, you don't read Misplaced Pages's policies. It states editors must avoid using esoteric terms. I have a hard time understand how the average reader would understand what "until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place" even really means. And did you not even read what Trump said or are you refusing to take context into account? He literally says 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. You ENTIRE argument is based on the fact he said 'you could say something'. That's not an argument. The. Muslim. Ban. Is. Scrapped. And honestly, could you please stop being so rude. I feel very much attacked by the way you're speak to me. Remember to be kind. ] (]) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: There is nothing esoteric about the term "vetting mechanisms". If Trump says somewhere that the Muslim ban is scrapped, you can add that if you want. That he considers his new proposal to be an expansion is crucial context. That you happen to disagree with Trump's description of his own plan is immaterial. ] (]) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: It's debatable how esoteric "vetting mechanisms" is, alright. But how hypocritical can you be? I MUST refrain from stating it is not a Muslim ban, yet you get the privilege of going around and claiming it still is. Right now, it's unsure, so why even mention it. Just mention what he has said clearly, that he wants to suspend immigration from countries with terrorism links. That's all. The Muslim part is debatable, so why include it for now? ] (]) 22:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: Let me be clear: (i) I don't want to add a sentence that says "Trump still supports a Muslim ban"; (ii) I am 100% fine with text saying that wants to suspend immigration from countries with terrorism links. All I'm saying is that Trump's own characterization of his proposals should ALSO be included. See the start of this talk page section. Those are the two sentences I want to add. ] (]) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	Somehow that section has gotten totally away from the wording that we hammered out, after much discussion, above on this page. I have restored that consensus-based version and said that any changes to it should be agreed to at this page. This is the version I restored:
	:''Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as ] and ]. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)''

	Snoongassnogan, what was it you wanted to add? Personally I would like to add something about ISIS, because he made such a point of it in his acceptance speech. He mentioned "a goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". How about: ''Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order" and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism"?'' That would lead naturally into the immigration ban in the next sentence. --] (]) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:That section barely takes into account the things Trump said in his RNC speech, you know, that speeched watched by nearly 35 million people and considered the most important speech a presidential candidate can give besides their presidential victory speech? The amount of "quotation marks" in that lead is disturbing and incredibly misleading. It misleads people into thinking that NAFTA or TPP is "unfair", or that his immigration policies are "real", or that he's in favor of "law and order". It's completely subjective, misleading, and doesn't belong in the page, much less the lead. In his RNC speech, Trump did not even mention renegotiating U.S.–China trade in his speech and it has never been a major part of his plans.Also, it doesn't even say 'his platform includes'. It acts like that's all Trump stands for. And it doesn't even mention ISIS, one of his biggest topics since 2015 behind immigration. Also, how is having a scrapped position of his even allowed in this lead, that's absolutely ridiculous. "Vetting mechanisms" is also way too difficult for the average reader to understand (please pay attention to Misplaced Pages's policies). This version is, in my opinion, way better than what we currently have:

	::''His platform includes combatting ] by building a wall along the ], reforming healthcare by replacing the ], rebuilding the ] while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling ] by defeating ] and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.''

	:Could we please reach consensus on using this, even if it's slightly adjusted. The current lead is an outright disaster. ] (]) 21:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	:: What this boils down to is that you're selectively deleting things that Trump has said at various points, imagining what his "true" positions happen to be and unnecessarily re-phrasing quotes. US-China trade has by any account of the campaign been a major feature, as his criticism of NAFTA/TPP. The fact that you call the use of quotation marks disturbing is in itself disturbing. I'm not sure what the lede looked like before, but your certainly the last person I want writing it given your strange editing habits and pro-Trump bias. You don't even seem familiar with his policies. ] (]) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::Could you stop being so rude to me? I have worked on Trump's page for so long now, and huge parts of this page have been updated and improved by me for over a year now. I'm VERY familiar with his policies. And by the way, you call me "pro-Trump", yet I see you're a big fan of Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton, as I can see in your edits. Perhaps I could call you anti-Trump, then? The lead is '''unclear'''. Whom is calling these trade agreements "unfair" readers will ask themselves. People unfamiliar with Trump's policies won't know the answer. And if the US-China trade is such a big deal to Trump's campaign, why didn't he even mention it in his RNC speech? ISIS is a MUCH bigger aspect of his campaign than US/China trade. You need to get out of your head and put your shoes in those of other people. You're incredibly rude to me, yet I have done nothing but try to help. ] (]) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Trump referred to China three times in his speech. ] (]) 22:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: Yes, he referred to the country that exists China, but not to the trade between the U.S. and China. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::: He expressed his opposition to China's entry to the WTO. He said he would stop China's "outrageous theft of intellectual property," "illegal dumping" and "devastating currency manipulation," adding, "They are the greatest that ever came about; they are the greatest currency manipulators ever!". He also said: "Our horrible trade agreements with China, and many others, will be totally renegotiated. " ] (]) 22:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Snooganssnoogans. ThiefOfBagdad's version is completely unacceptable and dramatically inferior to the current version. It presumes the truth of several highly contentious assumptions. To take just a few problems:
	::::*it presumes that the U.S. military is in shambles and needs to be "rebuilt" when in fact the quality of the military has not been degraded (, )
	::::*it assumes that building a wall would "combat illegal immigration" when virtually all the experts say that such a wall, even if it was practical to build, would be highly ineffective ()
	::::*it strongly implies that the trade agreements that Trump has lambasted have in fact been "unfavorable to American workers" (a statement with which most economists would say is either highly oversimplified or downright wrong).
	:::]<sup>]</sup> 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::The current lead implies that NAFTA and TPP are "unfair", which many disagree on, Trump's immigration policies are "real", which as you say is very controversial, and Trump is the "law and order" candidate, when he's been wanting to punch protesters at his rallies. So the current lead is '''no better'''. Just because it's the "words" "are" "in" "quotation marks", doesn't mean the ambiguity has disappeared. ] (]) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::The text could absolutely clarify that Trump calls them “unfair”, “real” and so forth. I agree with you there. I think more issues could also be included, though without your particular phrasing that policy X will have impact Y. ] (]) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	The use of quotation marks around "real" and "unfair" and "law and order" is intended to show that those are his actual words, without going into a lot of verbiage "what he considers real", "what he calls unfair". If they strike some people as "scare quotes" we can delete them, although I hesitate to call the trade practices unfair in Misplaced Pages's voice. I agree about adding something about defeating ISIS; I proposed a wording in my comment above. You seem to think the platform can include only the things he said in his acceptance speech; what about the things he has said, over and over and in writing, in other venues? And the clarifications he has issued after the speech? The current version (the one I just restored) was worked out by multiple editors with diverse views over a period of five or six days. Misplaced Pages works by consensus. You are free to try to get consensus for parts or all of your version, or to try to work out some kind of merger of the two versions. But calling the product of other people's work an "outright disaster" is not likely to lead you any closer to consensus. And starting a new section below, where you repeat what you said here and insist on your version, is not going to be helpful either. Let's keep the discussion in one place. --] (]) 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	OK, here's a revised version of the consensus passage, removing the quotes, removing China trade, and adding ISIS. Comments? --] (]) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)

	::Better, but there's still room for improvent. First of all, going from the fact that he's running for President to the fact that he opposes certain trade agreements is arbitrary. That's part of his platform, as he plans on vetoing such trade agreements. A vague proposal Trump made last year being in the lead is honesty unacceptable.The Muslim ban has been largely scrapped (or at the very least for the most part has been replaced) and should not be in the lead. He's moved on from there, and it's not something he's rallying around anymore. Furthermore, it's discussed in the Presidential campaign section of the page. Also, can we please just avoid quotes in the lead, that's very unprofessional overall. Only main issues should be mentioned as well.

	I propose this:

	:::Trump is a strong proponent of ], with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the ] in an endeavor to combat ], and tackling ] by defeating ] and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as ] and ], calls for the replacement of the ], and proposes national tax reductions.
	::That's not bad - actually an improvement in the immigration/wall portion. How about "combatting" instead of "tackling" Islamic terrorism? I see you dropped improving veterans care, but of course both sides claim that so it doesn't add much. I see you are still determined to use the wording "compromised by terrorism," although as far as I know he has only used that phrase once and it isn't even clear what it means - if it means anything. (Are France and the United States compromised by terrorism, having come under attack?) That wording is much more vague that his more usual "areas having a proven history of terrorism against the United States," but it's open to discussion. And whether to include the "Muslim ban" or not was a subject of disagreement above and could certainly be revisited. People? --] (]) 23:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	:: Thoughts: <br />1) I liked ]'s rewritten paragraph even ''better'' than my own suggested text, it was more professional and more complete. (Like he/she said it's not perfect, but I think it's very good.) <br />2) "Consensus" wasn't as strong previously as ] has suggested (only ~3 editors, and I was neutral re including "Muslim ban" as previous Trump suggestion, only including it since MelanieN felt strong about it then). <br />3) It's true that the words put in quotes were done so because they were quoting Trump (for example on his campaign website he explains "real immigration reform"; someone removed the "real" leaving "immigration reform", but EGADS! - that term is meaningless and also touted as goal by Democrats), but I agree with Thief and other editors that scare quotes were/are a bad idea (inherently ambiguous to reader). <br />4) Re MelanieN's proposal to include text re ISIS, what happened to the sentence in my suggested text: "Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory."? (Someone removed it from both the article and the discussions here.) <br />5) Instead of "increasing military spending" and "rebuilding the military", Trump has more to point been saying growing (bigger) and "modernizing" the military. <br />6) I don't like the milquetoast language "combatting" and "tackling" re illegal immigration and ISIS, when Trump has consistently been more emphatic than that (better are "ending" and "destroying/defeating", respectively). <br />7) Again, in my suggested text re "platform" I used as guide only what is listed on Trump campaign website under "Positions" (e.g. including U.S.–China trade, which is a prime issue for Trump, featured also in RNC speech and many rallies). Adding from the RNC speech is reasonable, but use of word "platform" I thought implies specific positions on paper, perhaps!? (Word "platform" either shouldn't be used, or it s/ be made clear what is the meaning/source.) <br />8) There are so many issues Trump is passionate about/obviously feels are very important that he has often articulated in speeches (e.g., getting rid of Common Core/improving education, rebuilding & modernizing infrastructure , dealing w/ the national debt , energy , and so on). (So who prioritizes these issues, or picks & chooses, even in lede, and on what basis?) <br />9) I must have missed hearing Trump talk about "not rolling back" and "expansion" (i.e. "Muslims" to "territories"), but it seems reasonable he didn't mean expansion = Muslims + territories, rather that when territories are the basis, Muslims are then a subset. <br />Ok, ] (]) 00:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	: I hope this comment reaches the right person (MelanieN) (this talk section has gotten very big, very cumbersome to read): I would not opt for very general language and ideas, like wanting to "destroy ISIS", be the "law and order" candidate, "stop islamic terrorism" (who doesn't want to do those things, be that candidate). I'd rather it mention the most salient policies proposed to achieve those things: ISIS, Islamic terrorism (maybe sending troops, increase defense spending, muslim/territorial ban) + for law and order you could say that Trump has spoken of crime worsening in the US (note that Trump has offered zero specific policies or plans relating to law and order, except on illegal immigration, so it's difficult to add specifics besides doomsday rhetoric about crime rising). ] (]) 01:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: Thanks for the comments, ]. I'm going to be gone for a few days so you all are going to have to reach consensus without me. I think it is very important to include the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (or better yet, "radical Islamic terrorism") because that is an absolute buzzword for the Republicans, who have taunted the Democrats for mostly avoiding that phrase. I would be fine with "destroy ISIS" which is exactly the way Trump talks. I would oppose saying anything about "crime worsening in the US" because although Trump does say it, it is mostly false. Besides, dealing with crime is not primarily a federal function, it's done by the states. --] (]) 02:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: I don't know what the standard is for citing untruthful statements in ledes on major wiki pages but it seems to fine to say that Trump ''alleges'' that crime is worsening (now a major feature of his campaign). Simply saying "destroy ISIS" is a position that every politician says and every reader agrees with. That attitude is not something prominent about Trump, rather it's his methods for solving it (torture, bombing, maybe ground troops, work with Russia) that are prominent. ] (]) 04:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	Thanks for the comments ], ] and ]. Also, hope you have a great couple of days off, Melanie! I see suggestions for it to be more specific and less generic. I wouldn't use combating twice though, seems a bit much. "Law and order" candidates have existed since Nixon though, this isn't some kind of generic term, this has been used for specific candidates that want to decrease crime, and Trump has even described himself as such. So I propose this:

	''Trump is a strong proponent of ], with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the ] in an endeavor to combat ], and efforts to subdue ] by sending military troops to defeat ], increasing U.S. defense spending, and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as ] and ], calls for the replacement of the ], and proposes national tax reductions.'' ] (]) 07:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	I don't believe the reference to sending troops to fight ISIS is current given .] (]) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC) The body of the article also references this source.] (]) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	: CFredkin is correct. It would be more accurate to say that Trump would step up military actions (though he has been a bit unspecific about what that entails exactly). ] (]) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	: I would suggest just removing this phrase: "by sending military troops to defeat ISIS".] (]) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	== NYT: Is Donald Trump a Racist? ==

	Here's the Nicholas Kristoff story. I'm putting it here for reference. I'll come back to it later.

	http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html<br>
	Is Donald Trump a Racist?<br>
	Nicholas Kristof <br>
	New York Times<br>
	JULY 23, 2016<br>

	To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental.

	A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it. A Trump rental agent said the Trumps wanted to rent only to “Jews and executives,” and discouraged renting to blacks.

	Donald Trump furiously fought the civil rights suit in the courts and the media, but the Trumps eventually settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government. Three years later, the government sued the Trumps again, for continuing to discriminate. --] (]) 21:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:I see many issues with this article. First of all, it's clear that there are no actual facts that he did these things. "A former building superintendent" said this, "A Trump rental agent" said that... Where is the proof, where are the documents? Trump even won the case, which would mean that there was a lack of evidence to support the claims. ] (]) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	: This is an op-ed. It shouldn't be included here. ] (]) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	::If you read the article again, you'll see that he said, "I’ve waded through 1,021 pages of documents from that legal battle." The proof is that these statements are supported by sworn testimony in a court case that is public record. The documents are in the federal courthouse, where anybody can verify them. Trump did not "win" the case, he settled. As Kristoff said, "settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government."

	::Kristoff is a ]. Op-Eds can be included here. According to ], "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --] (])

	::: Wrong policy, ]. ] is paraphrasing ] (]s rarely reliable for statements of fact), not ]. --] (]) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	Here's another ] that is also based on a review of about 1,000 pages of court documents, and comes to the same conclusions. This article addresses several points that editors have raised and says: (1) There was enormous press coverage and Donald Trump became a "regular presence" on newspaper front pages. This shows how it had a major significance in New York City. (2) the allegations of racial discrimination were based on the sworn statements of "testers" who tried to rent apartments and were turned away. (3) it again describes the coding of "C". (4) it explains the "welfare cases" issue, which I think is a red herring. (5) everyone except Trump said that it was a victory for the government.

	I lived in New York City during that time. It was a major story. Now it's become a major story again.

	https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html<br>
	Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it<br>
	By Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr.<br>
	Washington Post<br>
	January 23, 2016<br>

	NEW YORK — When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments.

	The two would-be renters on that July 1972 day were actually undercover “testers” for a government-sanctioned investigation.... Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as “No. 9” and “C” for “colored,” according to government interview accounts filed in federal court....

	The case, one of the biggest federal housing discrimination suits to be brought during that time...

	The 20-month legal battle marked the first time Trump became a regular presence on newspaper front pages. It served as an early look at the hardball tactics he has employed in business and, more recently, in politics. And its resolution showed how Trump, even in the heat of battle, is often willing to strike a deal.

	This account is based on a review of more than 1,000 pages of court records ....

	the racial coding allegations, gained notice in a 1979 Village Voice investigation and more recently in a Daily Beast story....

	“The idea of settling drove me crazy,” he wrote in “The Art of the Deal.”

	“What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,” Trump wrote in his 1987 autobiography. “I’d rather fight than fold, because as soon as you fold once, you get the reputation of being a folder.”

	The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

	The Justice Department claimed victory, calling the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.”

	Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

	Goldweber, the Justice lawyer who originally argued the case, said it was a clear government victory.

	--] (]) 18:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	: "Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’" -- Kranish.
	: Norton is clearly saying that Trump was a bigger name than the average N.Y.C. landlord. Not that he was a bigger racist. (And having admitted that size was a determining factor, neither she nor Kranish can ever unring that bell.) --] (]) 08:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Proposal for content to be included in the lede ==

	I've edited the "Political positions of Donald Trump" for some time now. This is the kind of content I'd like to see included in the "political positions" part of the lede to this wikipedia page. I've divided them up into "natural categories" (immigration, economy, social issues, energy/environment, foreign policy) for clarity and the correct weight:

	* Trump's "signature issue" is illegal immigration, in particular building a wall on the border with Mexico and the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Having early in his campaign advocated a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration, Trump has reformulated the ban so that it would be geographical, not religious, to apply to “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.”"

	* Trump's signature economic policies are the raising of tariffs on China and Mexio, across-the-board tax cuts, the dismantling of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), and opposition to changing entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

	* He is pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage and has called for revoking an IRS rule that prohibits tax-exempted Churches and other non-profits from campaigning on behalf of candidates.

	* Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and promotes greater use of fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation.

	* He supports increasing U.S. military defense spending, has at various times said he favored and opposed sending US ground forces to defeat the Islamic State, and calls for the resumption of waterboarding. Trump proposes to renegotiate NATO and the WTO; leaving the organizations unless changes are made. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small>
	:::Thanks for this. Offhand reaction: This is way to much to go in the lede, which can include only a few points that can be stated in a sentence or two. (That's the nature of the lede.) In the current proposal, we already have the wall and the immigration limits. We have tax cuts and repeal of ACA. "Opposition to changing SS and Mcare" depends on when he is talking and what your definitions are; he does seem to oppose the usual Republican position of cutting or privatizing them. Likewise he doesn't talk a whole lot about Dodd-Frank and CPA. Pro-life and same-sex marriage are routine for all Republicans, not worthy of mention in the lede. Likewise the climate change and regulation points. He did make quite a point in his nomination speech about the "Free the pulpit" thing, maybe we could add that because we haven't heard a lot about it from other candidates. --] (]) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I agree that if anything has to go, it's Dodd-Frank and CPA first. "He is pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage" is short enough not to took up too much stuff. He's talked a lot about reducing environmental regulations, so while the sentence can be trimmed, I think it's noteworthy enough. ] (]) 23:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I think we can fit most of it in if we use concise language. ] (]) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: I agree with Melanie's points above. I think the current language that's being formulated in the discussions above reasonably represents his political positions for the lede. I'm concerned that adding more would become undue.] (]) 00:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: I understand the concerns but think the existing lede could be trimmed for the sake of ''more'' of his political beliefs (I understand if not all of the content I mentioned could be included). The existing positions that are mentioned could be trimmed some, and lines such as "Trump's presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention." and "with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." could be deleted IMO. ] (]) 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::IMO those passages are more important than platform details, which are spelled out in great detail in the text. --] (]) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::: Isn't it weird to specifically mention that a presidential campaign receives media coverage and int attention? While I do consider it true that Trump has gotten 2008 Obama-like coverage and attention, it doesn't feel important enough for a lede, especially when core issues like wanting to abolish/renegotiate NATO, WTP and raise tariffs are not mentioned (things that go against bipartisan consensus, has global implications and gets plenty of attention). The protests/riots feel a bit passe in my view. ] (]) 01:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: '''Support''' ]'s proposal that this passage be deleted: "''Trump's presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention''". (The information has now become so self-evident that continuing to include it the lead could be perceived by at least some readers as an insult to their awareness.) --] (]) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: '''Oppose''' ]'s suggested draft, which seems somewhat divorced from the widely circulated mainstream sources that purport to provide concise well-balanced compilations of Trump's most important positions. Perhaps we should try to limit our discussion to those items that are listed in at least two such compilations, as published in mainstream sources that all editors are willing to acknowledge as high quality (BBC News, for example). --] (]) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Could you link to a few of those compilations of views? I'm convinced that my first bullet point would be mentioned in every compilation, as would tariffs on China and Mexio from BP2, bringing back torture (final BP) and his comment about targeting terrorists' families (which I did not put in my BPs), and abolishing/renegotiating NATO in the final BP. ] (]) 01:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	::::: So far I've found only two relatively current compilations:
	::::: '''1'''. '''Financial Times''', . "Mr Trump repeated many of the themes that have driven his populist campaign: illegal immigration, global trade, corporate corruption, violence towards police officers, and the rise of radical Islamist terrorism."
	::::: 2. BBC News, . "Here are five policy areas where Mr Trump has bucked the Republican line. Gay rights ... National security ... Immigration ... Trade ... Foreign policy ..."
	::::: Reuters recently published a limited compilation. The writers mentioned their frustration with the task. . "His speech ... offered scant detail... He wants to ... in some cases block altogether, like Trans-Pacific Partnership... vow to deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants."
	::::: But here are some other pre-eminent, widely circulated publications and newswire services: NYTimes.com, WSJ.com, Time.com, and BigStory.AP.org. (Unlike the Guardian, Washington Post, FOX, CNN, and such, they're marketing themselves to a world audience rather than a particular demographic, and they're known to have the financial resources needed to pay for top-quality journalists and fact-checkers.) --] (]) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Long list of sources ==

	Reddit contributors have compiled this . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Confused by ThiefofBaghdad's lede edits ==

	ThiefofBaghdad re-wrote the lede without consensus (and with several users expressing concerns about his/her wording of the lede). The user then asked other users to edit it as they saw fit, which I did (though I noted in my explanation that we ought to wait for a mandate from the talk page) and which ThiefofBaghdad reacted very strongly to. This is my version:

	* Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, repeatedly asserting that crime is rising and proposing the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration. He favors increasing U.S. defense spending and stepping up military actions against ISIS through the use of ground troops and resumption of waterboarding. He proposes to temporarily suspend immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism (a modification of an earlier proposal to suspend Muslim immigration). He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, and proposes an increase in tariffs on China and Mexico. Trump proposes to renegotiate NATO and the WTO; leaving the organizations unless changes are made. He calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes across-the-board tax reductions.

	This is ThiefofBaghdad's:

	* Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and efforts to subdue Islamic terrorism by sending military troops to defeat ISIS, increasing U.S. defense spending, and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions.

	I believe my version is superior: more clarity in the proposals Trump's made + mentioning very important issues that get a lot of attention, go against bipartisan consensus and have global implication (renegotiating/leaving NATO, WTO) + mentions the Muslim ban that he sort of came to fame with. I look forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. ] (]) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	:* Feedbacks on your text: "Repeatedly asserting" where? Not in rallies or his website. Only his RNC speech. He favors moderizing U.S. military not just "increading spending". He acknowledged in interview when asked that U.S. ground troups will eventually be necessary to defeat ISIS, your text saying he "favors" is unclear and perhaps misleading. His preference to bring back waterboarding if legal to do so, isn't part of "stepping up military actions against ISIS". He made it clear the temporary immigration ban was specifically not a "proposal" but a suggestion. He proposes renegotiation of China trade agreement, you've reduced that to one possibile/partial step of "increasing tariffs". (And why is Mexico included in that, when Trump usually always mentions Japan and Vietnam and South Korea along with naming Mexico trade imbalance.) Re NATO, "unless changes are made" is unnecessary abstraction, probably caused by combining NATO and WTO, which have different issues, in one sentence. (Re NATO, Trump has consistently stated that member countries must do their part and "pay their fair share".) Trump has said that leaving those organizations must always be on the table, your text could be construed to say he has named his conditions and threatens to leave if not met. Ok, ] (]) 23:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

	In response to IHTS, these are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention.

	Crime is rising:

	* June 2016: www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/
	* July 2016: www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752834632907943936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
	* RNC speech

	Increase spending on military:

	* Trump stated that he "would increase on the military” www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/03/09/hannity-on-road-donald-trump/

	Send ground troops:

	* I think it’s right to skip this one (it was part of ThiefofBaghdad’s new lede version, so I just rephrased and kept it in), as Trump has distanced himself from this idea now.

	Waterboarding:

	* It’s a major part of his campaign. It’s part of his campaign to stop ISIS (put in that context by him).

	Muslim/territorial ban:

	* Trump only claimed that it was a suggestion after changing his proposal. He issued a a December press release "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. That’s not an off-hand remark, that’s a proposal.

	China tariffs:

	* In January 2016, Trump proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States to give "American workers a level playing field.” www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/

	Mexico tariffs:

	* Trump has vowed to impose tariffs — in the range of 15 to 35 percent — on companies that move their operations to Mexico. thehill.com/policy/finance/289005-trump-suggests-leaving-wto-over-import-tax-proposal

	NATO:
	* Trump was vague prior to July but Factcheck.org interpreted his collection of statements to mean that might be willing to leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance. www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/
	* When asked in July about a prospective Russia attack on NATO's Baltic members, Trump stated that would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations "have fulfilled their obligations to us.” This means that Trump won’t uphold the security guarantees in NATO unless some unspecified obligations are met (as it stands, NATO is based on automatic security guarantees). www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html
	* My text doesn’t imply that he has made specific demands (because he hasn’t), he has threatened to not uphold the treaty. ] (]) 01:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


	::All your listings document some thing, but not what I offered in my feedbacks. You're not reading for meaning, you're pushing your slanted text. You allowed less than 1 hour discussion then posted your rewrite . You've been reverted to earlier version that at least had some consensus per {{u\|MelanieN}}. ] (]) 01:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

	::: Those are point-by-point responses to some of your assertions. I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second last sentence. Thief edited and encouraged others to "feel free to be bold (Wiki policy) and make changes where needed". ] (]) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

	:::: Changes to articles on ] should be done with extra care, ]. For helpful guidelines, see ]. On controversial articles, the safest course is to ] and find ] before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles.
	:::: Do you understand why this may not be one of those situations?
	:::: Also, some of your assertions seem divorced from the reality of WP policy as interpreted by ''most'' editors. Illustration: "''These are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention... July 2016: www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752834632907943936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw''"
	:::: Do you understand why you can't use this particular source to support this particular assertion, even in part? (If not, you may need to reread ].) --] (]) 09:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: Plenty of secondary reliable sources covered that tweet (which AFAIK makes it good enough for inclusion). Here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/12/no-donald-trump-crime-is-not-out-of-control/. The point was to respond to IHTS's deep misperception of Trump's actual policies and positions, such as the idea that Trump had only asserted at the RNC that crime was rising. ] (]) 12:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Huh?! (I never posted anything about 'crime', only that Trump is strong about 'law and order'. So how is it I've showed "deep misconception" re something I've never commented on. Time for you to go home.) ] (]) 12:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: I'm responding to your response on this talk page, which was full of deep misconceptions about Trump's policies (and you never even bothered to respond to the point-by-point debunk of your nonsense). This is your response to my suggestion on Trump repeatedly asserting that crime is rising: ""Repeatedly asserting" where? Not in rallies or his website. Only his RNC speech." ] (]) 12:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::How does asking location of where you are hearing things, equate to being "full of deep misconceptions about policies"?! You're full of it. And you're apparently blind to your own editing slants. And I don't respond to ] posts. ] (]) 13:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::: I provided sources and point-by-point responses to your claims. Your counter was to dismiss the response in its entirety without any substantive input. That the people who dominate Trump's wiki page apparently don't have a clue what his positions are, push pro-Trump edits regardless of the facts, and dismiss those who reliably source his actual positions is disturbing. ] (]) 13:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Again, no you didn't respond to what I wrote, making impossible to respond or discuss with you. Now you go stereotyping about "the people" based on your irritation with a single editor, throwing insults ("Don't have a clue", "push pro-Trump edits regardless of the facts"). I told you that I see a slanted taint to most all your edits, because I did/do observe that. Get mad all you want. Just makes me question your fitness to edit this BLP. ] (]) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Let's not make this personal you two. Best to just focus on the content. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	: New 'crime is rising' assertion today: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759450053379579905 ] (]) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Add back IPA? ==

	I want to see if I can get consensus for adding back the english ].

	It would look like
	'''Donald John Trump''' ({{IPAc-en\|ˈ\|d\|ɒ\|n\|əl\|d\|_\|'\|dʒ\|ɒ\|n\|_\|'\|t\|r\|ə\|m\|p}}; born June 14, 1946)

	instead of
	'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946)

	] ] 02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
	: This looks to me like unhelpful ]. --] (]) 03:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
	::I see your point, maybe shifting it to the infobox would be better. ] ] 19:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
	: Donald Trump doesn't need a IPA. Adding once would be redundant since the subject in question is a person. ] (]) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

	:Donald and John are common names in English and Trump is a common word. Unless he used a non-standard pronunciation of any of his names, the IPA is unnecessary. ] (]) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	::We've discussed this before and that pronunciation of "Trump" is seriously questionable.--] (]) 01:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Change image ==

	{{Infobox person
	\| name = Donald Trump
	\| image = Donald Trump 2013 cropped more.jpg<!-- This image has been placed following discussion. DO NOT ALTER WITHOUT DISCUSSION. -->
	\| alt = Trump at lectern before backdrop with elements of logo "TRUMP DonaldJTrump.com"
	\| caption = Trump in 2013
	\| birth_name = Donald John Trump
	\| birth_date = {{birth date and age\|1946\|06\|14}}
	\| birth_place = ], ], U.S.
	}}		}}

			== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
			{{rfc\|bio\|pol\|rfcid=E2D89B1}}
			The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq\|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}} — ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{small\|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I know, I know, this isn't the first time someone here has complained about the current image (but that already says a lot about how unfit the current picture might be). Trump looks so presidential and professional in this picture, and he hasn't gone through some kind of major change in looks that a picture from 2013 somehow isn't applicable anymore. Here, he looks a lot more natural, and he is looking clearly into one direction and not crossing his eyes somewhere else like in the current one. What do you guys think of using this picture instead of the current one? ] (]) 14:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
	:I ~~like~~ ~~the~~ ~~current~~ ~~image~~. ] (]) 14:52, 26 ~~July~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	~~::This~~ ~~particular~~ ~~picture~~ ~~was~~ ~~suggested~~ ~~and~~ ~~rejected~~ ~~(along~~ with 20 ~~others)~~ in ~~several~~ ~~discussions~~ ~~during~~ ~~the~~ ~~primaries.~~ ] ~~issue~~. — ] ~~<sup>~~]~~</sup>~~ 16:28, 26 ~~July~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing.] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Artem P75\|Slatersteven\|Nikkimaria\|Nemov}} To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}}? — ] (]) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::And to offer a rationale, this one is unflattering--he looks like he just drank lemon juice. The current one is a very typical look of his and quite neutral, neither flattering nor unflattering, just real. ] (]) 17:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
	:I ~~created~~ ~~that~~ ~~crop~~ as a ~~try~~, ~~but~~ ~~like~~ ~~other~~ ~~alternate~~ ~~lead~~ ~~image choices~~ it ~~fails.~~ ~~(Eyes~~ ~~black~~, ~~and~~ ~~per~~ ~~Yopienso~~, ~~lips~~ ~~puckered~~.) ] (]) 20:52, 26 ~~July~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	~~::This~~ ~~issue~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~buzzing~~ ~~round~~ ~~the~~ ~~lily~~ ~~pond~~ ~~for~~ a ~~year.~~ ~~Let's~~ ~~let~~ it ~~drop~~.--] (]) 10:31, 28 ~~July~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at ] describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — ] (]) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Why are you replying to me, I didn't raise this issue. (Do you understand indenting?) ] (]) 14:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
			*::It's a redirect. The said, {{tq\|But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.}} -] (]) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			*::This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -] (]) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Request regarding the redirect "The Donald"==
			*'''Oppose''' mainly as {{TQ\|it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article}} per Artem, also because ] isn't a ''"a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view"'' inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	The Donald is not just the nick-name given to ]. It is also the name given to the notable subreddit "/r/The_Donald". The subreddit can be seen in the ] due Trump's role in giving an AMA in that subreddit during the election. ] (]) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Alleged authoritarianism ==

	(with the edit summary "revert vandalism") restored a recent characterization of Trump as "authoritarian". The prior removal of that adjective was certainly not vandalism, and I favor removal for several reasons. Right now, this Misplaced Pages article says, "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as...authoritarian." Here are the three sources cited:

	*Hamid, Shadi. ''The Atlantic''. 6 May 2016. 28 July 2016.<br />
	*Feldenkirchen, Markus, et al. ''Spiegel Online''. 1 February 2016. 28 July 2016.<br />
	*Chait, Jonathan. ''NYMag''. 28 July 2016.<br />

	First of all, various adjectives that have been applied to Trump are already described in sub-articles at Misplaced Pages, consistent with ], and we don't have room in this main article for all of that. Secondly, the statement by Shadi Hamid is in an opinion piece (not a neutral news piece or scholarly work), and moreover has not evidently been quoted or described by any other neutral reliable sources ---- the same goes for the cited Feldinkirchen and Chait sources, which detracts from their prominence. Thirdly, the view of Trump as authoritarian is not undisputed. See, e.g., Gillespie, Nick. , ] (March 14, 2016): "Understanding Trump as a populist rather than an authoritarian helps explain why he can get away with sloppy, inconsistent thinking."] (]) 16:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	: In addition, none of the sources support the claim that he has been "widely" referred to as "authoritarian" either individually, or collectively.] (]) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: Nailed it, ]. For the reasons listed above, I too '''support''' removal. --] (]) 18:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Trump's stiffing of contractors and employees ==

	The first paragraph of the "Further legal matters" section cites to a June 2, 2016 ''USA Today'' investigation about Trump's 3500 lawsuits, but ignores their June 9 report, "." Why? Nowhere that I could find in this BLP is there a report that he doesn't pay people. Where, for a very recent example, is the story about ? It's not at ] either.

	]: ''In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.'' ] (]) 18:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:If the paint store is not included at ] then you can try to insert it there. I'm not aware of any reason why anyone would object to that. If it's included in that article, then perhaps it can be summarized briefly at this article, per ].] (]) 18:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{e/c}}
	::Multiple RSs:
	::*''USA Today'': "." (Cited above.)
	::*''WSJ'': ""
	::*''NBC'': ""
	::*''Miami Herald'': ""
	::*''Fox'': "" (This references several of the above sources.)
	:::] (]) 19:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	::::I'm asking about the larger picture of Trump's m.o. of not paying his lawyers, contractors, and employees. The paint store is just the most recent report. ] (]) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::The same answer applies. If you successfully put it into ] then it can be summarized in this article per ].] (]) 19:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::OK; thanks. Heading out now but will do later. Or maybe someone else will first. :) ] (]) 19:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::You should include the information here and not let ] waste your time chasing your tail. ] is an anti-abortion POV-pushing editor who was topic banned by a 12-0 vote on all "abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Anythingyouwant_topic-banned). He is now POV-pushing Trump to be the next President per his agenda to illegalize abortion. The fact that the WMF allows this kind of continued anti-abortion POV-pushing after a topic ban is very sad. ] (]) 22:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::: What here could have possibly warranted that personal attack? The first mention of abortion in the discussion was by Gouncbeatduke.] (]) 23:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::: Editors have a right to know about ] pattern of misdirection and unethical editing. The vast majority of his edits to this article have been POV-pushing edits clearly designed to get Trump elected and make abortion illegal in the USA. ] (]) 15:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::Going after someone without providing proof (diffs) makes you look silly. Please provide at least one diff (<u>from this article</u>) where he violates NPOV regarding abortion. -- ] (]) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Indiscriminate removal of content ==

	I added a bunch of content vital to his political positions (NATO, WTO, Russia) but it was indiscriminately removed for the reason that it was too long. This text was roughly 2,000 characters but 2/3 of it was citations. This content is of greater importance than much of the other content there. Other content can also be trimmed without any substantive harm, such as:

	* The minimum wage section is way too long (you don't need a history of his positions - it's just enough to say that he's been inconsistent, favors letting states set the wages and that he's floated the idea of a $10 national minimum wage).
	* The Iraq War section also has redundant info (isn't it enough to say he tentatively endorsed it in 2002, publically opposed it in 2004 and has been a vocal critic in the GOP debates? Is it necessary to count the instances since 2004 that he's opposed the war?).
	* I think we can do without his position on Pakistan.
	* Drop Trump's reference to global cooling in the 1920s. Is this a rationale that he brings up a lot for his climate change denial? If not, I think we can skip it.

	By executing these trims (or just some of them), the other content can be easily included without lengthening the section. Here's the content that was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. It's straight from https://en.wikipedia.org/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. The content that I added can of course also be trimmed (e.g. it's enough to say that Trump wants to renegotiate the WTO or leave). ] (]) 00:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	: The Political Positions section here is already much, much longer than the corresponding sections of other national politicians (HClinton, Biden, Romney, McCain). I would be in favor of pruning content as suggested above, but not replacing it with other content.] (]) 01:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: I disagree. Tim Kaine has a longer section strictly on political positions (note that I'm not including all the implicit positions that are from his tenure as mayor, governor and senator - if those were included, his political positions section would be vastly longer). The other individuals that you mentioned are all prominent politicians with long governing or legislative records. As a result, their 'political positions' are chiefly covered under campaigns and their tenures as governors/senators, which is not the case with Trump who has no political experience. If the 'positions' that are currently covered under Mike Pence's tenure as governor and congressman were turned into a 'political positions' section, he'd have one longer than Trump. The same with HRC. ] (]) 01:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	Snooganssnoogans, I agree with the four changes you propose here. Not because the section is too long - it isn't - but because those particular items can be omitted or summarized without harming the article. As for the things you want to add, let's talk about them; I haven't evaluated them. --] (]) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	: My proposed edits can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. This is all unchallenged material taken directly from https://en.wikipedia.org/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. All highly important issues that have gotten lots of attention and have global ramifications. ] (]) 02:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: Yeah, I saw that. That edit contains additions, removals, moves - I wasn't able to make out what you actually want to add. Can you untangle it here to show just what it is you want to add? --] (]) 02:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: The first is about his position on the WTO: Trump wants to renegotiate WTO or leave it (this was in response to a question to how he'd get the WTO to get along with his 15-35% tariffs. This goes against bipartisan consensus, and would have global ramifications. The second is about how Trump rejects that the US automatically extends NATO security guarantees, tying them to unspecified 'obligations' that NATO members must do in order to get the US to defend them. He has also suggested that he would leave NATO unless his unspecified changes are made to the alliance. Both of these steps go against post-WWII bipartisan consensus and would have global ramifications. The third is about Trump considering recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and removing sanctions on Russia related to its support for Russian separatists in the Ukraine. The fourth is about Trump's urging Russia to conduct cyberespionage against Hillary Clinton. All these edits have been sourced, have been up on the 'Political Positions of Donald Trump' for some time and without challenge. ] (]) 02:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	::The minimum wage section, which I expanded, needs to be longer than normal because of the ''manner'' of Trump's inconsistency on a very important topic. Examples are needed to actually demonstrate who inconsistent he has been (or, if you will, to let the reader decide what Trump's position ''really'' is). For example, to simply say that "he favors letting states set the wages" isn't true - look at his latest statement, which says (among other things) that there should be a federal minimum wage of $10.

	::Having said that, I've trimmed the section a bit. -- <font style="font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 02:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	::: I'm not necessarily supporting a trim. I frankly don't think that the section on Trump's political positions should be shortened (nor do I think it's consistent with how other politicians' pages look - see my response to CFredkin). I'm just saying that if length is the only thing keeping out Trump's positions on NATO, WTO and Russia, then other content should be removed to allow that content in. ] (]) 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	: ], ], ]. Given that the stated reason for deleting the content is inaccurate (section too long compared to other politicians' pages) and that there are no accuracy and reliability problems with the proposed edits, do I have your permission to restore the content? ] (]) 17:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	:: I still believe the section is already much too long. I also don't agree with the notion that Hillary's career in politics justifies her having 360 words in the corresponding section in her bio compared to 2020 for Trump. Hillary has not held political office for 4 years, and did not address many of the issues of day as Secretary of State prior to that. Also, I don't believe the topics being proposed for addition are as notable as those already included.] (]) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: If you want to add more to HRC's corresponding section, go ahead. Neither I nor probably anyone else would have problems with you adding her signature issues to her corresponding section, making it as long as Trump's. The reason why they're not there is presumably because much of it is already covered under her tenure as first lady (attitude towards healthcare), her voting in the Senate (a bunch of positions), her Senate and Presidential campaigning (lots of positions there) and her record as SoS. By no standard is Trump's section on political positions too long (compare to all the political positions covered under Tim Kaine's, Mike Pence's, Obama's and HRC's pages) and the notion that Trump's position on Pakistan, and the redundant text on the minimum wage and the Iraq War are more notable than Trump's statements on NATO, WTO and Russia is frankly incomprehensible (do you seriously believe that?). ] (]) 17:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: My main point is that (unlike the articles on Kaine and Pence) full Political Positions articles already exist for both Trump and Clinton. The Political Positions section of Hillary's bio adheres to ], which explains its length. The Political Positions section for Trump's bio is already much longer than ] would suggest. Once again, I would be in favor of pruning it, and agree that the reference to Pakistan should go.] (]) 18:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::: That's a completely different rationale. It sounds like you need to create a talk for that specifically and obtain consensus rather than hold up content indiscriminately that no one else has expressed disagreement with while you flip through different reasons in inconsistent ways to exclude it. If Trump's 'political positions' section is meant to be a summary of his full Political Positions article, then there is no argument to be had that NATO, WTO and Russia earn mentions. They clearly do, given their salience. ] (]) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: I've stated repeatedly that this section is already too long. I've provided multiple reasons why I'm making that statement, but my core argument has remained the same.] (]) 18:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: By the way, I'm curious, did you ever state that the section was too long before I added those three bits of content? Adding a ping (]) in case you missed this. I'm genuinely curious. ] (]) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	: Pinging other regular editors to this page: ], ], ], ], ], ]. Is there any way to move forward on this? Isn't the reasonable position here to allow my content in, and have a separate debate over whether to shorten the section? ] (]) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	::Having looked through some of Snooganssnoogans' edits and suggestions, I agree with him here. Much of the content that he added should be here, and some of the existing stuff should be shortened or dropped (although it looks like some movement has already been done on this point).
	::As said above, it also cannot be reasonably disputed that Trump's positions on NATO, WTO and Russia belong here. These are core themes of high importance. Editors can quibble about how exactly this material should be included, but it certainly should be in here. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	: Also pinging ] and ].] (]) 19:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	:: I think most readers would be most interested in finding out what his ''established'', time-independent positions are. Some may also be interested in finding out about his reactive, time-varying positions; but I can't help them. Writing up a timely and balanced compilation would be a Sisyphean task. Our consensus text would become outdated within days, not months.
	:: Here are two authoritative compilations of Trump's ''established'' positions: Donald J Trump for President, ; Financial Times, .
	:: I believe our first task is to write up an authoritatively balanced summary of his established positions. Only then should we supplement it -- piecemeal, section by section. --] (]) 20:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: OK, would you be fine with allowing my edits in until you have reached a consensus to go with your proposal to revamp the section (which seems more relevant for a separate discussion)? Because as it stands, my edits, which are all covered extensively and in-depth by reliable news sources around the world and stirring up reactions from politicians, national security experts and journalists, are being kept out in full from this article for reasons that don't apply to any other content. ] (]) 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	In the interest of resolving this, I would be ok with ] edits, with the important exception of the reference to the comment about Russia finding Hillary's emails (which is being debated elsewhere in Talk), if the cuts that Snoogans suggested at the beginning of the section are also made.] (]) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: Ok, I made some restore edits. Let me know (or fix in edits) if anything was added in or deleted badly. ] (]) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	*There's nothing "indiscriminate" about the removal of content that had no consensus to be here. It was just simply put in the article. This article is under strict sanctions, and editors are therefore not allowed to dump a bunch of content here with no prior attempt to get consensus for their edits. It's pretty simple, isn't it? One would think... ] ] 03:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	===Allegedly refusing to rent to blacks===

	Since you asked me--

	This is getting complicated. I'm limiting myself to the one issue of the DOJ charges of Trump's refusing to rent to blacks.

	In this edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 ]
	deleted "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replaced it by "in the operation of 39 buildings".

	This changes the edit that ] made and justified in Talk on 05:37, 29 July 2016.

			:* '''Support''' Very much ] to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of ] and ] only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
	Anythingyouwant used the sham argument that it violated ]. It's a sham because, first, if it violates BLP in the main article, then it also violates BLP in the sub-article. Second, it doesn't violate BLP because it's supported by multiple ]s, including newspapers like the New York Times which are specifically given as examples of reliable sources in WP:RS.
			:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Weak oppose''', while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			:*'''Weak Oppose''', Agree with same sentiment as @] 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
	Much of Anythingyouwant's arguments are based on his own interpretations of the words or his own opinion of what they mean or imply. I'm not going to respond to those arguments other than to say that Misplaced Pages doesn't follow the editors' opinions. It follows ]s, and if WP:RSs use those words, Misplaced Pages uses those words.
			:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''': Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that ] (which discusses the use of {{tq\|"technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter"}}) asks the question, {{tq\|"On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?"}}, and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing ] best practices with the length and depth of Trump's ], let's move on.
			:As a side note, ] has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. ] (]) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	The other sham argument against it was that the section and the article are "too long." He's replaced "by refusing to rent to blacks" with "the operation of", which is only 3 words shorter.

			== The Apprentice ==
	It violates consensus because we discussed the section many times in Talk, gave many versions of proposed wordings, and we none of those wordings eliminated the language about refusing to rent to blacks. So Anythingyouwant changed this wording in violation of consensus.

			I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for ''The Apprentice'', which was a milestone in Trump's life. ''The Apprentice'' led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.
	According to the Warning box above, this ] page is subject to active arbitration remedies. To repeat from above, the restrictions are:
	* '''Consensus required:''' All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating ''any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).''

			{{cot\|title=Before}}
	The deletion of references to blacks has been challenged. So Anythingyouwant violated that restriction.
			1 Early life and education
			2 Personal life
			2.1 Family
			2.2 Health
			3 Business career
			3.1 Real estate
			3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
			3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
			3.1.3 Clubs
			3.2 Side ventures
			3.2.1 Trump University
			3.3 Foundation
			3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
			3.5 Wealth
			4 Media career
			5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)
			{{cob}}
			{{cot\|title=After}}
			1 Early life and education
			2 Personal life
			2.1 Family
			2.2 Health
			3 Business career
			3.1 Real estate
			3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
			3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
			3.1.3 Clubs
			3.2 Side ventures
			3.3 Foundation
			3.4 Trump University
			3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
			3.6 Wealth
			4 Media career
			5 The Apprentice
			6 Licensing the Trump name
			7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)
			{{cob}}
			-] (]) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{u\|Nikkimaria}}, a barnstar is on its way for . Thank you!
			:Is there a way to keep some of this? {{tq\|Biographer ] writes that he was an athletic teenager who dreamed of a Hollywood career.}} In 1969 Trump followed his heart, walked into the Palace Theater, and asked to become a producer, invested in one show and lost his money. I have more reading to do but I think Haberman repeats ] that Trump always wanted to be a Hollywood star. I think it's important to our narrative to keep the progression from youth -> TV -> a political stage. -] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			::I'd suggest waiting until we can frame that progression more holistically, since as presented it was disconnected from his eventual media career. (Plus I don't think athleticism is a necessary part of that progression). ] (]) 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Anythingyouwant joined Misplaced Pages on 24 July 2016, and has made most of his edits to the Donald Trump article, where he is a partisan for Trump. It looks like a ]. He has regularly come up with dubious arguments, like the claim that any mention of renting to blacks violates ], and he's ignoring consensus.
			:::Thank you for the correction. Trump was a remarkably good first baseman but we don't have to cite the one sentence that combines sports and Hollywood. So I agree to skip over sports.
			:::My mistake, it was ], Barrett's research assistant. Everybody I've read so far includes Trump's interest in Hollywood:
			:::* {{tq\|Before heading off to college he was fairly certain that he wanted a career in show business, not real estate. He said he planned to attend the University of Southern California to study filmmaking and had already produced a Broadway show called ''Paris is Out''.{{sfn\|O'Brien\|2015\|p=53}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|Even after joining the family firm, Donald could not shake his youthful interest in show business and the faster track to fame that offered.{{sfn\|Haberman\|2022\|p=39}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|In college he had contemplated a movie career and took half a step in that direction {{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|p=108}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|For a time, he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of Southern California—reflecting his lifelong love of movies—but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home.{{sfn\|Kranish\|Fisher\|2017\|p=45}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|The full extent of Donald Trump's college-years rebellion involved fantasizing about a career in the theater or film.{{sfn\|D'Antonio\|2015\|p=48}}}}

	I ~~would~~ ~~like~~ to ~~restore~~ ~~the~~ ~~reference~~ to ~~blacks~~ in ~~that~~ ~~section.~~ I ~~think~~ we ~~have~~ ~~consensus~~ on ~~inculding~~ ~~it,~~ ~~and~~ if ~~anyone~~ ~~disagrees~~, ~~let~~ me ~~know~~ ~~here~~. ~~Otherwise~~ I ~~assume~~ we ~~have~~ ~~consensus~~ to ~~keep~~ it in. --] (]) 19:49, 31 ~~July~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		So where does it belong? I see no reason to use four words to say USC. How about this? {{tq\|Trump considered film school and a show business career, but in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University.}} Also I should add that he was a producer at ''The Apprentice''. -] (]) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The matter is being discussed above at ]. I've made it very clear that I support including the allegation about discriminating against blacks. I oppose doing it in a misleading way, however. We have two competing proposals for how to do it. I support one and oppose one.] (]) 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

			:How about {{tq\|Trump considered film school but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.}}? ] (]) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Trade ==
			::I'd prefer to better follow the sources. How about {{tq\|Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.}}?
			::(Also correction, I haven't ''read'' all these books; I make use of indices.) -] (]) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|he was a producer}}: if you look at the credits of TV shows, you'll often see the stars of the show also listed as executive producers. It could just mean that they're the big names necessary to get financing for the show; they might also get input on scripts and story lines. Initially, ] planned to have a different business tycoon headlining the show each season but found few people interested in the job, and after the success of the first season he and NBC settled on Trump.
			::::Yet you lead with "From 2004 to 2015, Trump was co-producer and host..." (most important position in the section). I don't understand your edits. You removed the person who created ''The Apprentice'', and the person who created the catchphrase. This must be corrected. -] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|contemplated/flirted with a movie career}}: who hasn't dreamed of Hollywood? It isn't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. He didn't attend film school or take acting lessons. So he lost $70,000 in 1973 to get his name on the playbill of a broadway play that flopped. That's chump change compared to the $1.17 billion in business losses he reported to the IRS between 1984 and 1995. ]] 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Seems to be moot now, although I'd support removing the Broadway flop. -] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}Sources to explain the importance of giving the origin of "You're fired." Trump didn't make this up by himself, although he tried and failed to trademark it.
			* NY Post:
			* WNYC:
			* Business Insider: made note that Trump borrowed his trademark phrase for his NBC show, "The Apprentice," from Steinbrenner, who first popularized "you're fired" in his years-long, love-hate relationship with manager Billy Martin, whom Steinbrenner hired and fired a total of five times.]
			-] (]) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The NY Post is not a reliable source (also doesn't mention an origin for the catchphrase). Haberman cites her source for "homage to Steinbrenner" on pg. 528. It's . Smith mentions this featuring Steinbrenner and Yankees on and off-again manager Billy Martin. It’s one sentence in a long article, and it merely says that Steinbrenner "first popularized" the phrase. Smith's 2017 BI article quotes former Yankees employee Ray Negron saying that Trump "borrowed that from the great George Steinbrenner, and people forget that" (another opinion), and in his 2019 NBC article Smith doesn't make this claim. Vince McMahon had been "you're fired" as his catchphrase since 1998, and Trump was a regular at WWE events, so that’s also a possible source. Third possibility: He remembered the phrase from the many movies in which it was used in more or less violent scenes: , , , , , of movies going back to 1933. The only thing we know for sure is that Trump used it and in 2004. ]] 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|co-producer}}: I hadn't noticed that mistake. AFAIK, he was credited as executive producer - credit and pay without actual duties. They also had to edit out raw footage of Trump making sexist and racist or just plain dumb remarks. I'll get back to this later or tomorrow. ]] 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't wish to engage in an edit war but it is disrespectful to omit the man who created ''The Apprentice''. Instead in this article we piled all the glory on Mr. Trump.
			::We've erased the connection to Trump's political aspirations (which are in the very next section).
			::Haberman wrote that Trump knew Steinbrenner since the 1980s. Are we splitting hairs to hide the issues? If you don't like Mr. Smith's choice of words, choose another per ]. One trademark lawyer says "You're fired" . This point I'll concede because you keep arguing.
			::I defer to your years of editing this article. But I ask that you please listen to new information. Buettner & Craig, Kranish & Fisher (and Haberman and O'Brien) are the best sources we have so far, aren't they? -] (]) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well, if you don't wish to engage in an edit war. IMO, we had a neutrally written paragraph on the ''Apprentice'', explaining what it was and what it did for his image. It was rewritten quite a few times in the six years I've been involved in editing this article, by different editors. That the show was somebody else's brainchild is a detail that belongs in the shows article, and that it ran for 14 seasons is confusing without the explanation that two "seasons" per year were broadcast from 2004 to 2006. I haven't gotten around to looking up previous discussions and the editing history. ]] 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Misplaced Pages says {{tq\|The Celebrity Apprentice is linked in seasons to its precursor TV show, The Apprentice, which consists of seasons 1–6 and season 10. The Celebrity Apprentice consists of seasons 7–9 and 11–15.}} Perhaps those are the kinds of details this article can skip. {{u\|Nikkimaria}}, would you possibly have time to copyedit the ] paragraph? -] (]) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Do we really need to explain that Trump didn't invent the extremely common phrase "you're fired"? Is anybody actually dumb enough to need that pointed out to them? And, if they are, how did they manage to get to this website?--] (]) (]) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Guessing most Wikipedians are too young to understand the cultural reference. -] (]) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Here's a start at compromise.
			:::::{{tqb\|Producer ] made Trump a TV star{{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|p=7\|loc="Mark Burnett, the television producer who made Trump a star, did not just hand him a fortune."}} when he created '']'', which Trump co-produced and hosted from 2004 to 2015 (including variant '']''). On the shows, he was a superrich chief executive who eliminated contestants with the ] "you're fired". ''The New York Times'' called his portrayal "highly flattering, highly fictionalized". The shows remade Trump's image for millions of viewers nationwide.<ref>{{cite news\|last1=Grynbaum\|first1=Michael M.\|last2=Parker\|first2=Ashley\|author-link2=Ashley Parker\|date=July 16, 2016\|title=Donald Trump the Political Showman, Born on 'The Apprentice'\|work=]\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/business/media/donald-trump-apprentice.html\|access-date=July 8, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine \|last=Nussbaum \|first=Emily \|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/the-tv-that-created-donald-trump \|title=The TV That Created Donald Trump \|magazine=] \|date=July 24, 2017 \|access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref> With the related licensing agreements, they earned him more than $400 million.<ref>{{cite news\|last=Poniewozik \|first=James \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/arts/television/trump-taxes-apprentice.html \|title=Donald Trump Was the Real Winner of 'The Apprentice' \|work=] \|date=September 28, 2020 \|access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref>}}
			::::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, OK to edit the above in place if you want to. -] (]) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{talk-reflist}}

			== Edit War ==
	From the "Political positions" section, I propose to remove this sentence: ''"Trump identifies as a "free trader", but says that trade must be "reasonably fair". "'' The source documents one time (possibly the only time) he called himself a free trader, in passing, and immediately qualified it. In the next sentence we have multiple references documenting that he is often called "protectionist" - the opposite of free trade - and proposes various tariffs. I submit that this poorly-sourced sentence about being a "free trader" should be removed, as it only confuses what his actual positions are. Thoughts? --] (]) 01:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 15:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1736133600}}<!-- END PIN -->
	:He may have called himself a "free trader" only once, but he's said that he supports "free trade" many times, which is the same thing.] (]) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the ], Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started.
	::Has he? In a quick search, I couldn't find anyplace where he has said "free trade" without immediately qualifying it. The and the say his proposals are the opposite of free trade.The truth may be that Trump himself doesn't understand the difference, or a lot of the details about trade. In compilation of his comments on trade, he rails against TPP because it was "designed for China to come in" and permits China's currency manipulation, until someone points out that TPP doesn't involve China. With that possibility in mind, I think we should describe what his policies actually are, not what he mistakenly calls them. --] (]) 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
	:::Well, I suppose if someone truly supports pure free trade, then the ideal trade agreement would be just one sentence long: "No government that is party to this agreement shall tax imports or exports, or in any way restrict or regulate imports or exports." But your typical "free trade" agreement is thousands of pages long, so perhaps almost no one is really for free trade. Trump says he supports free trade as long as it is fair, and probably we can't do any better than reporting that position of his, together with any information we can find about what he thinks would make a trade agreement fair.] (]) 03:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			1. Interpresidency
			2. First post-presidency
			3. post-presidency (current)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See ] for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―] ] 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. ] (]) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―] ] 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in ] not ]. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. ] (]) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The word isn't in any dictionary. ]] 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			: That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. ]] 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Legally it has to end in 2028. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. ]] 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. ] (]) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. ] (]) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. ] (]) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You know, that sounds like a good idea.
			:Any objections? ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Works for me. ] (]) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. ]] 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, ] (]) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, sounds good to me.
			:::Ok, what should the next steps be?
			:::Also, just curious, who pinned this? ] (]) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|who pinned this?}} ―] ] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. ―] ] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in system size==
	==Trump allegedly encouraging Russian cyberwarfare against the US==
	I think the widely discussed statement by him in which he encourages authoritarian Russia, a hostile country, to conduct cyberwarfare against the US government merits inclusion in the lead. For example, there seems to be a widespread opinion among legal experts that he has committed a federal crime, namely treason. --] (]) 15:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	: I included that in one of my earlier edits (it was removed). See the discussion above on this talk page. ] (]) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::Trump said that he hopes Russia could find emails that have already been deleted from the Hillary Clinton server, and which Hillary Clinton claims were deleted because they were not work-related; Trump then added that he was being somewhat sarcastic. Right? Some reliable sources have described the incident that way, whereas others have described it as encouraging cyberwarfare, committing treason, et cetera. Given the very different characterizations in reliable sources (some newspapers even started with the latter characterization and then switched over toward the former), I think this is better dealt with in the usual Misplaced Pages way: describe it in the sub-article about the campaign, and then summarize briefly in this article per ]. While Trump committing treason would surely be appropriate for the lead of this main BLP, I don't think the weight of reliable sources suggests treason or serious advocacy of cyberwarfare.] (]) 17:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: Oops, I didn't see that the other editor wanted the inclusion of "treason". I don't think it's fair to add claims of treason to this article, particularly the lede. In my proposed edits, I just quoted what Trump said and quoted NYT's description of what this means. No mention of treason from me. ] (]) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Definitely not treason. The expert opinion I have read is that treason is so narrowly defined in the Constitution that there is no way this meets it. I think including it somewhere (maybe under the campaign section) is appropriate but not in the lede. It is only one of many outrageous/highly controversial statements he has made. And the various explanations afterward ("he meant give it to the FBI", "he was joking", "I was being sarcastic", etc.) are too extensive for the lede --] (]) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	: The comment itself seems pretty clearly to be sarcasm, rather than a serious call for Russia to hack the US government.Perhaps it should be mentioned at ], but I don't believe it's noteworthy here per ].] (]) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::If Trump merely meant that Russia ought to help us find the emails by turning them over if they have them, then it seems kind of non-outrageous to me even if he wasn't being sarcastic. Let's wait a while to see if this recent event has traction.] (]) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::: This has been covered by every single news outlet in great detail and spurred a great deal of uproar from politicians, national security experts and journalists. That you two have your own interpretation of what Trump meant (unsurprisingly, you go along with Trump and don't find this issue noteworthy at all) is besides the point. It clearly fitsl the criteria for an exception to ] ] (]) 18:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::: "seems pretty clearly to be sarcasm"? Really? It took him a long time to come up with that explanation. He invited Russia to find the "missing emails" and give them to the press, in a press conference on Wednesday. Later the same day he repeated the invitation in a tweet, this time saying the material be given to the FBI (as had been suggested by one of his surrogates). The next day, after 24 hours of uproar and outrage, he decided to claim he was being sarcastic. If that's the case, he certainly concealed it well and for a long time. (And if it really was intended as sarcasm, that's almost scarier than if he meant it: As pointed out , sarcasm about national security is a luxury that presidents can't afford.) --] (]) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

			This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. On inauguration day later in January the article is likely to quickly grow by at least another 50Kb in system size once the new section for the next 4 years of presidency is added with the already written Misplaced Pages pages for the New Cabinet nominations, etc. The article should go through a significant bulking down process before the next presidential term is added later next month in January. Adding this discussion here on Talk page for thoughts from editors about which sections in this article to split or fork, which to shorten, which to abridge when sibling Misplaced Pages articles are already written for many of the topics in the different subsections of this article. This Trump biography article would seem better if it could be made shorter than 400Kb in the current system size. ] (]) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	I propose we write something along these lines just after the last line in the Russia paragraph on his foreign policy subsection:
			:Why ? Not enough server space ? ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Many reasons, a few being technical, most being readability concerns. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree with {{u\|Cessaune}}. The article is currently taking about 55-65 minutes to read from top to bottom, which seems much longer than Misplaced Pages size guidelines. The technical size issue is that the article is now at about 410Kb, and on Jan 20 on inauguration day the section for the ] of 120Kb is going to be added to this article all at once. That is a total of 410Kb + 120Kb = 530Kb. At over 500Kb in size following inauguration day, that size for the article seems excessive and daunting. Are there any thoughts from editors about bulking down this article before the second inauguration on Jan 20 to make the article more readable for Misplaced Pages readers? ] (]) 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I agree. I think excessive detail occurs when the information is new and seems important at the time, but not after a few years. ] (]) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction? ==
	* In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."<ref name=":4">{{Cite news\|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html\|title=Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails\|last=Parker\|first=Ashley\|date=2016-07-27\|last2=Sanger\|first2=David E.\|newspaper=The New York Times\|issn=0362-4331\|access-date=2016-07-30}}</ref> The ''New York Times'' reported that Trump was "essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct ] against a former secretary of state."<ref name=":4" /> The next day, Trump said that he was being sarcastic. ] (]) 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{reflist}}

			The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. ] (]) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	At this point, unless the story keeps going (and perhaps becomes a turning point in his candidacy - but that would be crystal ballin'), it does not belong in the lede, but it definitely belongs in the article itself. The idea that it was just "sarcasm" does not belong in the article.] (]) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:I think that's a fair wording and I support it, including the "sarcasm" defense. --] (]) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	: Marek, I think it's always worthwhile to let the candidates explain what they meant. Readers will be free to interpret. ] (]) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

			:Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your ] on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: First, have any well-known Republicans who aren't in Clinton's camp responded to Trump's comment in any way that it would suggest it was a serious request on his part? Second, it is absolutely inappropriate to include the NYT's interpretation of his statement here in his bio (any more than we would include statements from the WSJ calling Clinton's explanations regarding her email server "lies" in her bio).] (]) 00:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			::The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "" and the first thing I found was . In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. ] (]) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: NYT is a reliable secondary source by any standard. The conservative Chicago Tribune characterized it as "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails". Without having read Clinton's page fully, I don't see why fact-checks or characterizations of states from reliable secondary sources shouldn't be allowed on her page. It would surprise me if her page and the e-mail controversy page don't include statements from Comey contradicting her. ] (]) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. ] (]) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't think it's a fair wording at all. Drop the NYT stuff, because balancing it out would result in undue weight for this recent news item. There's obviously no way that Russia could get the emails from hacking Clinton now given that they were deleted long ago. As proposed, we should say at most that Trump hoped Russia already hacked the emails, which is very different from Trump hoping that Russia would do so in future (as the NYT amusingly implies).] (]) 00:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			::::Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: The conservative Chicago Tribune characterizes it in the same way. As does the centrist Washington Post. I think we should look to reliable secondary sources on this, not you or any other editor's interpretation. ] (]) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			::Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. ] (]) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::The Washington Post corrected their original headline — "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton’s emails" — to "Trump invites Russia to meddle in the U.S. presidential race with Clinton’s emails." NPR also corrected its original headline — "Trump Calls On Russia To Hack Into Clinton’s Emails" — to "Clinton Campaign Says Trump Encouraged Espionage With Hacking Comment." If you really want to pursue this, I can find lots of further info from reliable sources about how maybe Trump didn't really urge Russia to hack anyone.] (]) 02:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			:::Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. ] (]) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. ] (]) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Ping\|NesserWiki}} ] is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed? ==
	::::It doesn't involve "interpretation". Anyone with non-dysfunctional listening comprehension can see Trump was referring to what was possibly hacked in the past, not what might be hacked in the future. If you stole some furniture and I told you to "Please, please give it to ", am I encouraging you to steal again?? The fact that major medias misinterpret to the level that gradeschool kids could identify, doesn't mean we s/ replicate their biases on WP. Jimbo said long ago that WP editors s/b "thougthful". He didn't mean being "kind". He meant to use our heads, to screen out crap like this. The fact these medias didn't and don't, s/ give you a clue as to their integrity and bias. ] (]) 03:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

			{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} decided to mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the ] they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.
	Two of the candidate's three wives were born and raised Bolshevik. --] (]) 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:And? This is looking like some OR stuff... ] ] 05:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Hitler had a mother. He was a Nazi. Trump has a mother. Therefore Trump must be a Nazi same as Hitler. (The illogic isn't trivial. Remember this major media news story?: "Trump tweeted a quote by Mussolini. Mussolini was a fascist. Therefore Tump must be a fascist, or have fascist tendency.") ] (]) 08:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

			The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and ], I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?
	== Legal Affairs of Donald Trump ==

			E.g. according to Vox: : {{tq\|"One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"}}
	I don't believe that the specific charge of refusing to rent to black tenants should be moved to the sub-page, "Legal Affairs of Donald Trump". I think it's a ], that is, an attempt to move unflattering material from the main page to an obscure page.

			Per : {{tq\|"Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"}}
	Look at the Pageviews Analysis for 73/0/2016:

			says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.
	Donald Trump 115,937

			It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put .
	https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Donald_Trump

			It would be great if other users could please weigh in.
	Legal Affairs of Donald Trump 825

			] (]) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

			:It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in ], ], and obviously ]. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	In other words, the main page gets about 116,000 views a day, and the sub-page "Legal Affairs of Donald Trump gets about 825 views a day. If I were a paid or unpaid advocate or supporter of Trump, and I was trying to cover up unfavorable facts about Trump, the first thing I would do would be to set up a subpage with fewer than 1% of the page views of the main article.
			::{{tq\|"A brief mention – like a sentence"}}? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? ] (]) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." ] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks, that's a good source to use. ] (]) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That CNN source, , and , don't support the laudatory text you proposed ({{tq\|The program has been characterized as one of Trump's most significant accomplishments by medical experts for enabling the development of effective vaccines in record time}}). They mention the 15 years of research and development of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology before the pandemic hit, Trump's interference and politicizing of the process, and his promise of many more doses by the end of 2020 than the goals set by the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. ]] 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. ] (]) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			'''Reincluded:''' I have the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the ], so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. ] (]) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	In fact, the worse the subpage, the fewer the views, and the more effective it is at censoring the unfavorable facts. --] (]) 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	::The matter is being discussed above at ].] (]) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::I'm not discussing ] here. I'm discussing the fact that moving text to a subpage is a way of censoring it, because of the discrepancy in page views, and violates ].--] (]) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	: I ~~think~~ the ~~charge~~ of ~~refusing~~ to ~~rent~~ to ~~black~~ ~~tenants~~ ~~should~~ be ~~mentioned~~ on ~~this~~ ~~page~~. ] (]) 19:53, 31 ~~July~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. ] (]) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. ] (]) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	: If it's well-sourced it should be mentioned on this page (albeit breifly). -- ] (]) 20:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|That is false.}} Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―] ] 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I think so too, as long as it says "alleged" or "allegedly". The charge was never proven, and Trump denies it. --] (]) 20:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			::::No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect ], and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. ] (]) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{od}} The matter is being discussed above at ]. I've made it very clear that I support including the allegation about discriminating against blacks. I oppose doing it in a misleading way, however. We have two competing proposals for how to do it. I support one and oppose one.] (]) 20:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			:::::I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―] ] 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. <s>Producing and delivering the</s> The production and delivery of a the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and . (Cue .) ]] 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ] (]) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, I find this reasoning to restrict it to ''one sentence'' unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor ''thinks'' that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

			::And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original . The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.
	Are these the two competing versions?

			::Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple ] explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?
	:Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:
			::] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see . ]] 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence}} — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. ]] 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their ''own conclusions'' that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple ] ''still'' describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .
			::::It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in ].
			::::In addition to the Vox source, the source did support: {{tq\|"Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe"}} ] (]) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You`re cherry picking a random quote ] (]) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I highlighted '''multiple''' ] above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (]) and in multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::A handful of random quotes taken out of context ] (]) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.
			:::::::::<br>
			:::::::::How do biographical sources treat OWS? ] (]) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::That's good. We should get into the nuances. ] (]) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tq\|"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic"}}, if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. ] (]) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. ] (]) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. ] (]) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq\|"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine"}} – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects ], it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the ]. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. ] (]) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the ] article. ] (]) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. An accurate documentation: ] (]) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I just your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: {{tq\|Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise '''may have played''' an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process.}} Your text: {{tq\|Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process"}}. I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. ]] 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, ] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. ]] 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. ] (]) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources ] and carrying out ] in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? ] (]) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. ] (]) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic ] (]) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== New official portrait <span class="anchor" id="When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?"></span> ==
	::He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings.
			{{small\|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―] ] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:
			:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―] ] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Making this article fully protected ==
	::He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.

			when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:So why in your edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 did you delete "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replace it by "in the operation of 39 buildings"?
			:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::ok ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―] ] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Donald trump is now president. ==
	:Would you have any objection if I changed "violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings"

			Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:to

			:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:"violations of the Fair Housing Act '''by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential''' buildings"?
			:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --] (]) (]) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left ] (]) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.
			:The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.
			:The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. ] (]) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Reduce number of citations ==
	:Does anybody have an objection? I think there is a consensus for including "by refusing to rent to blacks". Does anybody disagree that there's a consensus? --] (]) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:: I object to including content on this issue without taking into consideration the discussion regarding the appropriate language in the section above.] (]) 23:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::That's cute! The reality, however, is that it is '''going''' to be included. Because Trump is a big ol' "doody-head", and it makes us feel important and truly encyclopedic and important to pile on with every negative garbage little article that comes out. Get with the program! ] ] 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

			This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. ] (]) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Wharton professors ==

	Is ~~anyone~~ ~~able~~ to ~~find~~ ~~references~~ ~~about~~ ~~his~~ ~~professors~~ ~~when~~ he ~~was~~ at ~~Wharton?~~ ~~Some~~ of ~~them~~ ~~must~~ be ~~sufficiently~~ ~~notable~~ to ~~have~~ ~~Misplaced Pages~~ ~~articles.~~ ~~This~~ ~~would~~ ~~give~~ ~~us another insight into his intellectual worldview.~~] (]) 06:36, 1 ~~August~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – ] (]) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\| This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations.}} What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?{{pb}}While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See ].) ―] ] 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Good luck with .] (]) 06:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			::The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ] (]) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Wharton seems to have no problem acknowledging that Trump attended. ] ] 07:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::It seems he took their classes while at UPenn but was not enrolled at Wharton. See below.] (]) 07:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:(ec) Actually, take a look at . It says:
	:''"before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.”"''
	:What this appears to be saying is that although he <u>took classes</u> from the Wharton School but was not <u>enrolled</u> or <u>graduated</u> from the Wharton School. If he graduated with a degree in economics, then that's not Wharton (it's the UPenn School of Arts & Sciences). However, it does seem Wharton is claiming him as one of their "alumni" based on the fact he took their courses.
	:Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that "he graduated from Wharton" should be removed from the article.] (]) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::The link I provided, just above, ''from Wharton'', proudly lists him as a 1968 graduate. It doesn't get any more official than that. ] ] 07:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::If he graduated with a degree in economics then he could not have graduated from Wharton, because economics is not part of Wharton but part of UPenn's Arts and Sciences division .] (]) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Strike that, Wharton also gives BS in econ. So he could have.] (]) 07:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::However, the matter still remains that "attended" is not the same as "graduated". The link you provided only shows the former, and the link I provided directly contradicts that he "graduated".] (]) 07:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Just in case you or anyone else missed it: . That "W'68" part? On the very official Wharton website? That means he was a Wharton graduate in the year 1968. Jus' sayin'. ] ] 07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::You're right. I'm confusing Wharton's MBA program, which is what usually people think of when they say "Wharton", with the undergrad degree Wharton offers to UPenn students.] (]) 07:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::You don't check your facts. You are openly anti-Trump, which makes NPOV impossible. Why do you even edit this article? ] ] 07:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::What the hell are you talking about?
	:::And yes, I got it wrong initially but after ... checking the facts, I quickly corrected myself.
	:::And speaking of "checking the facts", it seems you haven't bothered to check that I've actually made no edits regarding this matter to the article. I'd appreciate it if you struck your personal attack.] (]) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Are you, or are you not, "openly anti-Trump"? ] ] 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I don't know what that means and you really need to stick to discussing content not editors, else we're taking a trip to ]. Again, please strike your personal attack.] (]) 07:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::There was no personal attack. You really have no business editing this article. We need a NPOV in encyclopedic articles. ] ] 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::I don't particularly appreciate you telling me what articles I "have business editing" or not. If you feel there's something wrong with my edits or comments on this article, please feel free to file an appropriate complaint either at AN/I or AE. You know how this works. But let me remind you: 1) discuss content not editors. 2) don't make unsupported ]. Those rules are there for a host of reasons, one of which is that failing to abide by them can quickly derail productive discussions, as you have done here. But hey, do what you want.] (]) 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	::Don't challenge me to support my "aspersions" that you are quite openly anti-Trump. I won't have to dig very deep at all; and I can dig deep. You have no chance getting me on a "personal attack". I'll say it again: you are openly biased against the subject. I do think that you should not be allowed to influence the content accordingly, and I will call you on it if I choose to. ] ] 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Again, you are free to file a report at AN/I or AE if you feel my edits violate any Misplaced Pages policy. In the meantime, it's not up to you to decide who or who should not be editing this article. Your blanket reverts of my edits - which appear to be made solely because it's myself who made them - are disruptive (never mind bad faithed).] (]) 08:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

			== Indictment Dismissal ==
	== 1 RR restriction and recent spurious reverts ==

			The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. ] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	It seems that ] after making his comment above that I "have no business editing this article" (because... not sure) has decided to arbitrarily revert any changes I make.

			==The late president's article==
	he reverts my edit with the edit summary ''Not in the source''. However, the source clearly states (this is even mentioned right in the discussion above) ''Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program''
			Looking at the article for the late ], the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ] (]) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	he reverts my edit where I replaced a non-reliable source with a reliable source (without changing article text) with a claim in the edit summary that ''"Can't swap a source that doesn't support the content with one that does"''. However, the source I "swapped in" clearly states: ''"The Republican presidential candidate tells Scott Pelley the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. is a "disaster."'' and ''"He says he will either break or renegotiate it "'' which is exactly the text that is being cited. Hence, the edit summary is false.
			::Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. ] (]) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? ] (]) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"pelican"? ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for ] also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. ] (]) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. ]] 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Private life, but the Health subsection of Private life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ] (]) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2025 ==
	he also reverts an edit where I replaced a non-reliable source with a reliable source (without changing article text) with the edit summary ''"Blogs? Yeah, not a RS. Yeesh"''. Yes, this is a blog, but it is associated with a reputable news source by an expert in the field. That makes it helluva better than a non-reliable source that was there previously. Even if there is a valid objection to using Schooled as a source, the proper thing then is to remove the claim until reliable sources can be found rather than restoring shoddy sourcing.

			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	I would appreciate it if Doc refrained from blanket reverting my edits just because he feels, for some reason, that I "have no business editing this article" (which isn't up to him to decide).] (]) 08:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			Update inflation dollar amounts under the "wealth" section i.e money received. ] (]) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You can't just add stuff to this article and expect it to be safe per the 1RR restriction. It will be struck down by a higher authority. I listed specific reasons each time I reverted you for adding content that I guess you just assumed would be unchallenged. ] ] 08:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
			:Not done... It is not clear what changes you want made, please format your request as "change X to Y" with ] that we can cite. - ] (]) 16:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::What is this "higher authority" that you are referring to? You?
	::I addressed these "specific reasons" you gave above - they are false.
	::1RR restriction applies to the article whether you like it or not.] (]) 08:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Shut. Up. <small>(signed, Everybody)</small> ] ] 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:31, 9 January 2025

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.

Article policies

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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

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 must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

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.

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!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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).

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal 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.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal 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.

Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Television: American Mid‑importance

	Television portal 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.
	This article is supported by the American television task force.

United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance

	United States portal 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.
	Television portal 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 U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

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 17, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 2, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 31, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 29, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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 News.
Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.
Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.
Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge.
Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today.
Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent.
Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek.
Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer.
Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News.
Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes.
Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian.
Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page". Fox News.
Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages?". Slate.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 137 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Skip to table of contents

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,298	9,298
Early life and education	3,619	3,619
Personal life	19	5,044
Family	1,340	1,340
Health	3,685	3,685
Business career	149	35,734
Real estate	4,555	15,954
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,168	6,168
Atlantic City casinos	3,610	3,610
Clubs	1,621	1,621
Licensing the Trump name	1,364	1,364
Side ventures	7,287	7,287
Foundation	5,025	5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	2,315	2,315
Wealth	3,640	3,640
Media career	3,452	5,107
The Apprentice and the Celebrity Apprentice	1,655	1,655
Early political aspirations	4,690	4,690
2016 presidential election	18,430	18,430
First presidency (2017–2021)	633	177,243
Early actions	2,743	2,743
Conflicts of interest	3,367	3,367
Domestic policy	21,318	21,318
Race relations	6,232	6,232
Pardons and commutations	2,574	2,574
Immigration	3,086	20,394
Travel ban	4,347	4,347
Family separation at the border	6,269	6,269
Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown	6,692	6,692
Foreign policy	2,859	35,965
Trade	2,517	2,517
Russia	4,221	4,221
East Asia	21	10,653
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan	4,914	4,914
North Korea	5,718	5,718
Middle East	23	15,715
Afghanistan	3,042	3,042
Israel	2,637	2,637
Saudi Arabia	2,229	2,229
Syria	3,797	3,797
Iran	3,987	3,987
Personnel	8,705	8,705
Judiciary	4,174	4,174
COVID-19 pandemic	291	31,456
Initial response	7,681	7,681
White House Coronavirus Task Force	5,253	5,253
World Health Organization	2,673	2,673
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures	7,799	7,799
Political pressure on health agencies	2,690	2,690
Outbreak at the White House	2,666	2,666
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,403	2,403
Investigations	1,079	26,084
Financial	3,111	3,111
Russian election interference	6,491	6,491
FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations	2,573	2,573
Mueller investigation	12,830	12,830
First impeachment	10,200	10,200
Second impeachment	3,398	3,398
2020 presidential election	34	24,158
Loss to Biden	6,902	15,669
Rejection of results	8,767	8,767
January 6 Capitol attack	8,455	8,455
First post-presidency (2021–2025)	5,018	34,695
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	630	27,295
FBI investigations	5,703	5,703
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	693	693
State criminal indictments	2,969	2,969
Federal criminal indictments	5,378	5,378
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	6,135	6,135
Civil judgments	5,787	5,787
2024 presidential election	15,072	15,072
Political practice and rhetoric	8,048	47,246
Racial and gender views	9,377	9,377
Link to hate crimes	4,730	4,730
Conspiracy theories	3,318	3,318
Truthfulness	10,483	10,483
Social media	5,810	5,810
Relationship with the press	5,480	5,480
Assessments	18	6,969
Public image	4,525	4,525
Scholarly	2,426	2,426
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	11,906
Books	3,256	3,256
Journals	8,632	8,632
External links	5,431	5,431
Total	404,808	404,808

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15 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. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) ~~In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be billion. (July 2018, July 2018)~~ Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35 Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019) 08. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

09. ~~Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017)~~ Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled 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. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024) 11. Superseded by #17 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." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite Supersedes #4. 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 (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 16. Superseded by lead rewrite Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 17. Superseded by #50 Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021) 18. Superseded by #63 The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020) 19. Obsolete Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017) 20. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies ~~have~~ sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.) 21. Superseded by #39 Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52 The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018). 24. Superseded by #30 Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49 Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019) 36. Superseded by #39 Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48 There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Racially charged

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

~~What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)~~ I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142 03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164 07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067 03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180 07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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.

The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement. — Goszei (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.

MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that WP:TTD (which discusses the use of "technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter") asks the question, "On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?", and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing WP:LEAD best practices with the length and depth of Trump's BLP, let's move on.

As a side note, WP:TTD has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The Apprentice

I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for The Apprentice, which was a milestone in Trump's life. The Apprentice led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.

Before

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
           3.2.1 Trump University
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.5 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

After

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Trump University
       3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.6 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 The Apprentice
   6 Licensing the Trump name
   7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, a barnstar is on its way for this edit. Thank you!

Is there a way to keep some of this? Biographer Maggie Haberman writes that he was an athletic teenager who dreamed of a Hollywood career. In 1969 Trump followed his heart, walked into the Palace Theater, and asked to become a producer, invested in one show and lost his money. I have more reading to do but I think Haberman repeats Wayne Barrett that Trump always wanted to be a Hollywood star. I think it's important to our narrative to keep the progression from youth -> TV -> a political stage. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until we can frame that progression more holistically, since as presented it was disconnected from his eventual media career. (Plus I don't think athleticism is a necessary part of that progression). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Trump was a remarkably good first baseman but we don't have to cite the one sentence that combines sports and Hollywood. So I agree to skip over sports.

My mistake, it was Timothy L. O'Brien, Barrett's research assistant. Everybody I've read so far includes Trump's interest in Hollywood:

Before heading off to college he was fairly certain that he wanted a career in show business, not real estate. He said he planned to attend the University of Southern California to study filmmaking and had already produced a Broadway show called Paris is Out.
Even after joining the family firm, Donald could not shake his youthful interest in show business and the faster track to fame that offered.
In college he had contemplated a movie career and took half a step in that direction
For a time, he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of Southern California—reflecting his lifelong love of movies—but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home.
The full extent of Donald Trump's college-years rebellion involved fantasizing about a career in the theater or film.

So where does it belong? I see no reason to use four words to say USC. How about this? Trump considered film school and a show business career, but in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Also I should add that he was a producer at The Apprentice. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How about Trump considered film school but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer to better follow the sources. How about Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.?

(Also correction, I haven't read all these books; I make use of indices.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

he was a producer: if you look at the credits of TV shows, you'll often see the stars of the show also listed as executive producers. It could just mean that they're the big names necessary to get financing for the show; they might also get input on scripts and story lines. Initially, Burnett planned to have a different business tycoon headlining the show each season but found few people interested in the job, and after the success of the first season he and NBC settled on Trump.

Yet you lead with "From 2004 to 2015, Trump was co-producer and host..." (most important position in the section). I don't understand your edits. You removed the person who created The Apprentice, and the person who created the catchphrase. This must be corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

contemplated/flirted with a movie career: who hasn't dreamed of Hollywood? It isn't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. He didn't attend film school or take acting lessons. So he lost $70,000 in 1973 to get his name on the playbill of a broadway play that flopped. That's chump change compared to the $1.17 billion in business losses he reported to the IRS between 1984 and 1995. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be moot now, although I'd support removing the Broadway flop. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources to explain the importance of giving the origin of "You're fired." Trump didn't make this up by himself, although he tried and failed to trademark it.

NY Post: national catch phrase
WNYC: Haberman: "Trump ends up emulating Steinbrenner when he does the, "You're fired," catchphrase on The Apprentice."
Business Insider: He

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The NY Post is not a reliable source (also doesn't mention an origin for the catchphrase). Haberman cites her source for "homage to Steinbrenner" on pg. 528. It's this 2019 NBC article by Allan Smith. Smith mentions this 1978 Miller Lite commercial featuring Steinbrenner and Yankees on and off-again manager Billy Martin. It’s one sentence in a long article, and it merely says that Steinbrenner "first popularized" the phrase. Smith's 2017 BI article quotes former Yankees employee Ray Negron saying that Trump "borrowed that from the great George Steinbrenner, and people forget that" (another opinion), and in his 2019 NBC article Smith doesn't make this claim. Vince McMahon had been bellowing, barking, grunting, and growling "you're fired" as his catchphrase since 1998, and Trump was a regular at WWE events, so that’s also a possible source. Third possibility: He remembered the phrase from the many movies in which it was used in more or less violent scenes: Raising Arizona/1987, Robocop/1987, Back to the Future 2/1989, Dave/1993, True Lies/1994, YouTube compilation of movies going back to 1933. The only thing we know for sure is that Trump used it and unsuccessfully tried to trademark it in 2004. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

co-producer: I hadn't noticed that mistake. AFAIK, he was credited as executive producer - credit and pay without actual duties. They also had to edit out raw footage of Trump making sexist and racist or just plain dumb remarks. I'll get back to this later or tomorrow. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage in an edit war but it is disrespectful to omit the man who created The Apprentice. Instead in this article we piled all the glory on Mr. Trump.

We've erased the connection to Trump's political aspirations (which are in the very next section).

Haberman wrote that Trump knew Steinbrenner since the 1980s. Are we splitting hairs to hide the issues? If you don't like Mr. Smith's choice of words, choose another per WP:FIXFIRST. One trademark lawyer says "You're fired" has been around for centuries. This point I'll concede because you keep arguing.

I defer to your years of editing this article. But I ask that you please listen to new information. Buettner & Craig, Kranish & Fisher (and Haberman and O'Brien) are the best sources we have so far, aren't they? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you're off to a bad start if you don't wish to engage in an edit war. IMO, we had a neutrally written paragraph on the Apprentice, explaining what it was and what it did for his image. It was rewritten quite a few times in the six years I've been involved in editing this article, by different editors. That the show was somebody else's brainchild is a detail that belongs in the shows article, and that it ran for 14 seasons is confusing without the explanation that two "seasons" per year were broadcast from 2004 to 2006. I haven't gotten around to looking up previous discussions and the editing history. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages says The Celebrity Apprentice is linked in seasons to its precursor TV show, The Apprentice, which consists of seasons 1–6 and season 10. The Celebrity Apprentice consists of seasons 7–9 and 11–15. Perhaps those are the kinds of details this article can skip. Nikkimaria, would you possibly have time to copyedit the Apprentice paragraph? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need to explain that Trump didn't invent the extremely common phrase "you're fired"? Is anybody actually dumb enough to need that pointed out to them? And, if they are, how did they manage to get to this website?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Guessing most Wikipedians are too young to understand the cultural reference. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a start at compromise.

Producer Mark Burnett made Trump a TV star when he created The Apprentice, which Trump co-produced and hosted from 2004 to 2015 (including variant The Celebrity Apprentice). On the shows, he was a superrich chief executive who eliminated contestants with the catchphrase "you're fired". The New York Times called his portrayal "highly flattering, highly fictionalized". The shows remade Trump's image for millions of viewers nationwide. With the related licensing agreements, they earned him more than $400 million.

Space4Time3Continuum2x, OK to edit the above in place if you want to. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

O'Brien 2015, p. 53. sfn error: no target: CITEREFO'Brien2015 (help)
Haberman 2022, p. 39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHaberman2022 (help)
Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 108. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 45. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKranishFisher2017 (help)
D'Antonio 2015, p. 48. sfn error: no target: CITEREFD'Antonio2015 (help)
Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 7, "Mark Burnett, the television producer who made Trump a star, did not just hand him a fortune.". sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Grynbaum, Michael M.; Parker, Ashley (July 16, 2016). "Donald Trump the Political Showman, Born on 'The Apprentice'". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2018.
Nussbaum, Emily (July 24, 2017). "The TV That Created Donald Trump". The New Yorker. Retrieved October 18, 2023.
Poniewozik, James (September 28, 2020). "Donald Trump Was the Real Winner of 'The Apprentice'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2023.

Edit War

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the Inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started. For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:

1. Interpresidency
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)

At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in 2024 not 2021. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Between presidential terms (2021–2025). Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like a good idea.

Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, sounds good to me.

Ok, what should the next steps be?

Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

who pinned this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in system size

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. On inauguration day later in January the article is likely to quickly grow by at least another 50Kb in system size once the new section for the next 4 years of presidency is added with the already written Misplaced Pages pages for the New Cabinet nominations, etc. The article should go through a significant bulking down process before the next presidential term is added later next month in January. Adding this discussion here on Talk page for thoughts from editors about which sections in this article to split or fork, which to shorten, which to abridge when sibling Misplaced Pages articles are already written for many of the topics in the different subsections of this article. This Trump biography article would seem better if it could be made shorter than 400Kb in the current system size. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Why ? Not enough server space ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Many reasons, a few being technical, most being readability concerns. Cessaune 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Cessaune. The article is currently taking about 55-65 minutes to read from top to bottom, which seems much longer than Misplaced Pages size guidelines. The technical size issue is that the article is now at about 410Kb, and on Jan 20 on inauguration day the section for the Second presidency of Donald Trump of 120Kb is going to be added to this article all at once. That is a total of 410Kb + 120Kb = 530Kb. At over 500Kb in size following inauguration day, that size for the article seems excessive and daunting. Are there any thoughts from editors about bulking down this article before the second inauguration on Jan 20 to make the article more readable for Misplaced Pages readers? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think excessive detail occurs when the information is new and seems important at the time, but not after a few years. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction?

The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your original research on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "reason for Trump winning election" and the first thing I found was The factors that led to Donald Trump's victory. In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. 108.27.60.251 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. NesserWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@NesserWiki: Conservapedia is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). JacktheBrown (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed?

Space4Time3Continuum2x decided to remove mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the discussion they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.

The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and WP:VER, I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?

E.g. according to Vox: here: "One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"

Per CBC: "Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"

Washington Post says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.

It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put here.

It would be great if other users could please weigh in.

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in First presidency of Donald Trump, U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and obviously Operation Warp Speed. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"A brief mention – like a sentence"? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source to use. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That CNN source, NPR, and

I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. BootsED (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reincluded: I have reincluded the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the WP:RS, so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That is false. Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect WP:RS, and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. ~~Producing and delivering the~~ The production and delivery of a "few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020" the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and a promise they didn't keep. (Cue Trump's vaccine conspiracy claims.) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I find this reasoning to restrict it to one sentence unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor thinks that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original edit. The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.

Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple WP:RS explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?

Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see my comment above. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their own conclusions that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple WP:RS still describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .

It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in WP:RS.

In addition to the Vox source, the CNN source did support: "Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe" Zenomonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You`re cherry picking a random quote Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I highlighted multiple WP:RS above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (WP:VER) and in multiple reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A handful of random quotes taken out of context Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.

How do biographical sources treat OWS? Riposte97 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's good. We should get into the nuances. Riposte97 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic", if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. LosPajaros (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine" – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects WP:RS, it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the WP:RS. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the Operation Warp Speed article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. An accurate documentation: O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process. Your text: Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process". I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and carrying out WP:OR in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section COVID-19 pandemic and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

New official portrait

Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. NesserWiki (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Making this article fully protected

when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) thekingpachy (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald trump is now president.

Change from President-elect to President. Kegsper (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kegsper you have to wait 14 more days... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

has he been inaugurated? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.

The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.

The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. Easeltine (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reduce number of citations

This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See #Tracking article size.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Indictment Dismissal

The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. Pillsberrydoo7 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The late president's article

Looking at the article for the late Jimmy Carter, the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? MaximusEditor (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? BusterD (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"pelican"? BusterD (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for John Quincy Adams also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. Riposte97 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Private life, but the Health subsection of Private life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2025

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

Update inflation dollar amounts under the "wealth" section i.e money received. Jupiterman9 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done... It is not clear what changes you want made, please format your request as "change X to Y" with reliable sources that we can cite. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: