Misplaced Pages

In revision 731931463, Anythingyouwant 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 WP:OR, the source must make the statement explicitly.

Anythingyouwant 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). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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 Legal affairs of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm substituting the consensus text for the current text per WP:CON.

A firm consensus was formed at 05:11. An editor began changing the consensus text in the article at 12:57. At 13:13, 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 disruptive editing. (See WP:CCC 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. (WP:TALKDONTREVERT.)

Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 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.Anythingyouwant (talk)

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

"...I think his proposed edits are an improvement..." Thank you for contributing to the discussion, CFredkin. Anythingyouwant made a total of six changes to the consensus text over the full 7-hour editing span. Which edit do you think was the greatest improvement?

"Except in cases affected by content policies, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position." (EDITCONSENSUS.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 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?Anythingyouwant (talk) 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."CFredkin (talk) 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 Fair Housing Act. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission 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. --Dervorguilla (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:

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.

Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:

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.

CFredkin 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 an early 42-word proposal: "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. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP concerns

User:Dervorguilla, 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:

I repeat that I strongly support the 47-word text, and I strongly believe that the 32-word text violates the Biographies of living persons policy. 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.
  

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. WP:BLP 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 WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Up to 25 July when you inserted material about racism into this section, the pertinent material in this BLP was as follows: "Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department (DOJ) of violations of the Fair Housing Act 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Below are my replies to the concerns you've helpfully listed, Anythingyouwant.

  (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, The Art of the Deal, at 98.

  (2) ...The government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent..."

Actually, Dunlap 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 Kranish:

"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...") --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, User:Dervorguilla. 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree in part with your points 1 and 3, Anythingyouwant.

(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? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If the 38 had black tenants. --Dervorguilla (talk) 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We're definitely getting somewhere, Anythingyouwant. How does this look?

May still need some work. Let me know your thoughts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 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. He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory.""

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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

1. ^ "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". Retrieved 2016-07-24.

Thank you, Snooganssnoogan. I was about to write about this myself. User:ThiefOfBagdad 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. --MelanieN (talk) 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My names seems to have been revoked here. In accordance with the WP:BOLD 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 Meet The Press 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 NAFTA and TPP. 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. --MelanieN (talk) 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 illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, reforming healthcare by replacing the Affordable Care Act, rebuilding the U.S. military while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump referred to China three times in his speech. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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. " Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 (see here, here)
• 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 (see here)
• 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).

Neutrality 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. --MelanieN (talk) 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? --MelanieN (talk) 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 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 tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS 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.

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? --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts:
1) I liked Thief'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.)
2) "Consensus" wasn't as strong previously as MelanieN 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).
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).
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.)
5) Instead of "increasing military spending" and "rebuilding the military", Trump has more to point been saying growing (bigger) and "modernizing" the military.
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).
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.)
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?)
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.
Ok, IHTS (talk) 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Snooganssnoogans. 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. --MelanieN (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments User:Snooganssnoogans, User:MelanieN and User:Ihardlythinkso. 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 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the reference to sending troops to fight ISIS is current given this.CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC) The body of the article also references this source.CFredkin (talk) 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest just removing this phrase: "by sending military troops to defeat ISIS".CFredkin (talk) 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
Is Donald Trump a Racist?
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
JULY 23, 2016

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. --Nbauman (talk) 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. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an op-ed. It shouldn't be included here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 WP:RS. Op-Eds can be included here. According to WP:BIASED, "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." --Nbauman (talk)

Wrong policy, Nbauman. Snooganssnoogans is paraphrasing WP:NEWSORG (opinion pieces rarely reliable for statements of fact), not WP:BIASED. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another WP:RS 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
Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
By Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post
January 23, 2016

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.

--Nbauman (talk) 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.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

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. --MelanieN (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we can fit most of it in if we use concise language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. --MelanieN (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Snooganssnoogans'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.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Snooganssnoogans'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). --Dervorguilla (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So far I've found only two relatively current compilations:

1. Financial Times, Donald Trump promises security and prosperity as US president. "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, US Election: What would a Donald Trump presidency look like?. "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. As Republicans anoint Trump, party grapples with identity crisis. "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.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Long list of sources

Reddit contributors have compiled this list of press coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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, IHTS (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 MelanieN. IHTS (talk) 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". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes to articles on active sanctions should be done with extra care, Snooganssnoogans. For helpful guidelines, see WP:BOLD. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus 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 WP:V.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.) IHTS (talk) 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." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 WP:IDHT posts. IHTS (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. IHTS (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's not make this personal you two. Best to just focus on the content. ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New 'crime is rising' assertion today: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759450053379579905 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Add back IPA?

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

It would look like Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld ˈdʒɒn ˈtrəmp/; born June 14, 1946)

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

Henry  02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks to me like unhelpful LEADCLUTTER. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, maybe shifting it to the infobox would be better. Henry  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. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Change image

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? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the current image. YoPienso (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular picture was suggested and rejected (along with 20 others) in several discussions during the primaries. WP:DEADHORSE issue. — JFG 16:28, 26 July 2016 (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. YoPienso (talk) 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.) IHTS (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been buzzing round the lily pond for a year. Let's let it drop.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you replying to *me*, I didn't raise this issue. (Do you understand indenting?) IHTS (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Request regarding the redirect "The Donald"

The Donald is not just the nick-name given to Donald Trump. It is also the name given to the notable subreddit "/r/The_Donald". The subreddit can be seen in the Donald Trump 2016 Campaign article due Trump's role in giving an AMA in that subreddit during the election. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged authoritarianism

This edit (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. "Donald Trump and the Authoritarian Temptation." The Atlantic. 6 May 2016. 28 July 2016.
  
• Feldenkirchen, Markus, et al. "Donald Trump is the Most ..." Spiegel Online. 1 February 2016. 28 July 2016.
  
• Chait, Jonathan. "Hillary Clinton Is Running Not Just As the Democrat But As the Candidate of Democracy Itself." NYMag. 28 July 2016.
  

First of all, various adjectives that have been applied to Trump are already described in sub-articles at Misplaced Pages, consistent with WP:Summary style, 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. Donald Trump Supporters Are Less Authoritarian Than Ted Cruz Voters, Reason.com (March 14, 2016): "Understanding Trump as a populist rather than an authoritarian helps explain why he can get away with sloppy, inconsistent thinking."Anythingyouwant (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Nailed it, CFredkin. For the reasons listed above, I too support removal. --Dervorguilla (talk) 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, "USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills." 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 the paint store? It's not at Legal affairs of Donald Trump either.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE: 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. YoPienso (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If the paint store is not included at legal affairs of Donald Trump 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 WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Multiple RSs:

• USA Today: "USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills." (Cited above.)
• WSJ: "Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills"
• NBC: "Trump's Doral Golf Resort Ordered to Pay $300,000 in Attorney Fees"
• Miami Herald: "Judge orders Trump to pay nearly $300,000 in attorney’s fees in Doral painter’s lawsuit"
• Fox: "Donald Trump’s Companies Fail to Pay Bills to Contractors, Investigations Find" (This references several of the above sources.)

YoPienso (talk) 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. YoPienso (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The same answer applies. If you successfully put it into legal affairs of Donald Trump then it can be summarized in this article per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

OK; thanks. Heading out now but will do later. Or maybe someone else will first. :) YoPienso (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You should include the information here and not let Anythingyouwant waste your time chasing your tail. Anythingyouwant 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. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors have a right to know about Anythingyouwant 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. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Going after someone without providing proof (diffs) makes you look silly. Please provide at least one diff (from this article) where he violates NPOV regarding abortion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. --MelanieN (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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? --MelanieN (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

User:CFredkin, User:John Broughton, User:MelanieN. 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? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 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?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 WP:Summary style, which explains its length. The Political Positions section for Trump's bio is already much longer than WP:Summary style would suggest. Once again, I would be in favor of pruning it, and agree that the reference to Pakistan should go.CFredkin (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 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 (User:CFredkin) in case you missed this. I'm genuinely curious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging other regular editors to this page: User:Dervorguilla , User:Anythingyouwant, User: Neutrality, User:Nbauman, User:John_Broughton, User:Volunteer_Marek. 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? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Neutrality 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Doc9871.CFredkin (talk) 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, Donald J Trump: Positions; Financial Times, Donald Trump promises security and prosperity as US president.

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. --Dervorguilla (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving this, I would be ok with User:Snooganssnoogans 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.CFredkin (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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... Doc talk 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 user:Anythingyouwant 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 user:Dervorguilla made and justified in Talk on 05:37, 29 July 2016.

Anythingyouwant used the sham argument that it violated WP:BLP. 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 WP:RSs, including newspapers like the New York Times which are specifically given as examples of reliable sources in WP:RS.

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 WP:RSs, and if WP:RSs use those words, Misplaced Pages uses those words.

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.

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.

According to the Warning box above, this Donald Trump 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).

The deletion of references to blacks has been challenged. So Anythingyouwant violated that restriction.

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 WP:Single-purpose account. He has regularly come up with dubious arguments, like the claim that any mention of renting to blacks violates WP:BLP, and he's ignoring consensus.

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. --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP concerns. 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Trade

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? --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Has he? In a quick search, I couldn't find anyplace where he has said "free trade" without immediately qualifying it. The Washington Post and the National Review 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 this 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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. --Tataral (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 WP:Summary style. 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 --MelanieN (talk) 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 Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, but I don't believe it's noteworthy here per WP:NOTNEWS.CFredkin (talk) 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 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 WP:NOTNEWS Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 here, sarcasm about national security is a luxury that presidents can't afford.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose we write something along these lines just after the last line in the Russia paragraph on his foreign policy subsection:

• 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." The New York Times reported that Trump was "essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state." The next day, Trump said that he was being sarcastic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

1. ^ Parker, Ashley; Sanger, David E. (2016-07-27). "Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton's Missing Emails". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-07-30.

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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a fair wording and I support it, including the "sarcasm" defense. --MelanieN (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (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).CFredkin (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2016 (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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (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).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2016 (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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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. IHTS (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Two of the candidate's three wives were born and raised Bolshevik. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And? This is looking like some OR stuff... Doc talk 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.") IHTS (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Legal Affairs of Donald Trump

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 WP:POVFORK, that is, an attempt to move unflattering material from the main page to an obscure page.

Look at the Pageviews Analysis for 73/0/2016:

Donald Trump 115,937

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Donald_Trump

Legal Affairs of Donald Trump 825

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

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.

In fact, the worse the subpage, the fewer the views, and the more effective it is at censoring the unfavorable facts. --Nbauman (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP_concerns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not discussing WP:BLP 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 WP:POVFORK.--Nbauman (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the charge of refusing to rent to black tenants should be mentioned on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's well-sourced it should be mentioned on this page (albeit breifly). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think so too, as long as it says "alleged" or "allegedly". The charge was never proven, and Trump denies it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Are these the two competing versions?

Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:

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.

Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:

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.

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"?

Would you have any objection if I changed "violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings"

to

"violations of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings"?

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? --Nbauman (talk) 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.CFredkin (talk) 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! Doc talk 05:53, 1 August 2016 (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.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wharton seems to have no problem acknowledging that Trump attended. Doc talk 07:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems he took their classes while at UPenn but was not enrolled at Wharton. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, take a look at this. 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 took classes from the Wharton School but was not enrolled or graduated 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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 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. Doc talk 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 .Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Strike that, Wharton also gives BS in econ. So he could have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 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".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you or anyone else missed it: "THE BEST KNOWN BRAND NAME IN REAL ESTATE DONALD J. TRUMP, W’68". That "W'68" part? On the very official Wharton website? That means he was a Wharton graduate in the year 1968. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 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? Doc talk 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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you, or are you not, "openly anti-Trump"? Doc talk 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 WP:AE. Again, please strike your personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 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. Doc talk 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 aspersions. 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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 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. Doc talk 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).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

1 RR restriction and recent spurious reverts

It seems that User:Doc9871 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.

Here 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

Here 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.

Here 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.

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).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2016 (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. Doc talk 08:27, 1 August 2016 (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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Shut. Up. (signed, Everybody) Doc talk