Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Page's title

Given the fact that the President of the United States of America has his own Facebook account, and has changed it to be Donald J. Trump after becoming President, shouldn't this page be retitled? Given it's his preferred official name in his current position? Anyone disagree?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• I can't find it in the archives now, but this seems like a perennial proposal that has come up before. If you wanted to rename the page, you would need to go through an requested move, because it would inevitably be controversial. The key policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, which is why any RM would likely not be successful. He might go by Donald J. Trump but he is commonly known as Donald Trump. I'll let the denizens of this talk page who are more active on it than me chime in as to the last time it was discussed, but I would suggest not holding an RM. The best you could likely hope for is no consensus which would default to keeping it the same name. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were at least two requested moves already, one in 2016 and the other in 2017, made after he became President. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think his personal Twitter account was always "Donald J. Trump" (not "Donald Trump"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What is this, Groundhog Day?

Sheesh. I was gone for two weeks, and upon returning, what do I find? People are STILL arguing about the lede sentence. For heavens sake, give it a rest. We have held innumerable discussions and RfCs about the lede in the not-quite-three-months since he became president. (The articles about our two most recent previous presidents had stable lede sentences; I don't know why it has been so hard to achieve stability for this one.) But some people here seem unwilling to accept the result of a discussion; they immediately start rehashing the same old arguments for the umpteenth time. Look, I was not here for the proposal and acceptance of the current version (the one with a second sentence saying "prior to"), but I like it and fully endorse it. I suppose I will now have to say so in each of the multiple discussions currently active. But I am also ready to endorse a proposal to put a moratorium on discussion of the lede sentence - that is, to immediately close any new discussions, giving a link to the consensus. The moratorium would not apply if there is any major change in circumstances (for example, if he resigns), and there could be a time limit on it, say three months or six months. But please, let's stop this endless bickering and go back to building an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be nearing completion if we can get consensus on the immediately-preceding survey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll comment there. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, you just said here in this subsection that you "fully support" the current version (which at the time you made your comment included "full time"), but have also just voted against it. FYI, I was advised by another admin to resolve this mess by letting the lead paragraph be ambiguous,[1] and I agree with you that it's ambiguous when exactly he entered politics full time. That's deliberate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

By "current version" I meant the version that was approved at the latest RfC discussion. That is spelled out in "current consensuses #17" above. "Full time" was not a part of that consensus, and whoever added it to the article (remember, I've been away) seems to me to have violated consensus. But to clarify, I fully support the version specified at consensus #17 - which does not say "full time". --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I for one would infer that there may well be sound reasons for the "bickering", and I would rather not make attacks on the hardworking participants or their conduct. But I do understand your frustration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: If. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I see that a moratorium was proposed while I was gone, and failed to achieve consensus, so I guess that is a dead issue for now. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No consensus for a "three months or six months" moratorium. So let's try for a compromise (per WP:CON): "Table the proposal for study", for 2 weeks, during which time we solicit suggestions from outsiders. "Contribute ideas for the wording of the first two sentences at Donald Trump!" Then we decide how to proceed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any point in extending this for another two weeks. We should proceed from the version at consensus #17, not start all over again for the umpteenth time. We had three months to come up with ideas and we were going around in circles. Then we DID get that "compromise from an outsider" you want: User:Ad Orientem came up with a brilliant solution which was accepted. Let's finish this discussion about whether or not to add "full time", and put it to rest. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I think "full time" is unnecessary. It's not bad per se. But it's contributing to the lack of stability for the lead in that it is just creating yet another in the endless stream of discussions over something that is relatively trivial. And IMHO that makes it counterproductive. I'd wrap that discussion up ASAP and strongly discourage anymore tinkering with the lead over this kind of hair splitting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: If you oppose "full time" then please vote what version you do support. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that he supports the version he originally proposed - the one that does not say "full time". --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't 'obvious' if he doesn't ivote. He should ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's the same people complaining about the lede sentence. Not everybody. The same ones. Over and over and over. . .SW3 5DL (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

Superseded by #Survey about "full time" in lead paragraph — JFG talk 12:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be rewritten IMO. It is my understanding that he was political even before entering the Presidential race. Prior to becoming President he was a businessman and TV guy, but he was political throughout his years. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I agree. And it also makes it sound like he is no longer a businessman, which he clearly still is. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC) The edit does say, "Prior to entering politics. . ." and if you spend any time at AfD, you'll notice lots of new BLP's that claim the subject is a politician, yet while the subject ran for office, he was not elected to office. This fails WP:POLITICIAN and if there is nothing else notable about the subject, the BLP is deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I would have no objection to inserting the words "full time", like this: "Prior to entering politics full time, he was a businessman and television personality." But even without this change, I think readers would get the gist of it: that he was first a businessman and only subsequently got into politics bigly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC) And you can open an RfC that says, "Should the lede sentence say that prior to entering politics full time. . ." I imagine from that vague RfC we'll end up with the old long-winded sentence ending in "serving since January 2017." SW3 5DL (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC) We DO NOT need another RfC. RfCs are meant for DISPUTE RESOLUTION after regular discussions have broken down. How many times do I need to make this point? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) @Scjessey: Tell him that. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Who is "him" exactly? You are the only one who mentioned RfC, SW3. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC) SW3, I am not proposing to open an RFC, nor proposing that we insert "full time". I merely said I'd have no objection to it, and also explained why it's unnecessary. Why criticize an RFC that hasn't even been suggested? Now you've got Scjessey all riled up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC) It's OK to act trigger-happy or hotheaded if one does so in a civil and respectful way, as we've all been doing here. It can get a bit stressful for bystanders to watch, though. Suggestion: For each comment you post here, make one helpful housekeeping edit to the article ('fix ref' or the like)! --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC) That's an excellent suggestion. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC) This still needs to be addressed. The rushed decision to abruptly end the discussion that resulted in this problem is coming back to haunt us. Yet again, we need a rewrite of the lede sentence. How about something like this: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician. On January 20, 2017, he became the 45th and current President of the United States. This largely returns the lede sentence to its most stable version, and also solves a problem raised in an earlier thread about the need to include the date he took office. @Sir Joseph: Does this work for you? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Per guidelines, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." I couldn't support a first sentence that omits he's POTUS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I agree with Scjessey and Anythingyouwant. That wording is great. The current version leaves the impression he is no longer a businessman. That is not true. He has just turned the presidency into a platform for his business dealings, largely ignoring the emoluments clause. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I disagreed with Scjessey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Anythingyouwant, in what way did you disagree? I guess there's something going on of which I'm unaware. The sentence does mention that he's POTUS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Scjessey's proposal appears to be two sentences, and only the second mentions that he's POTUS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) He has just turned the presidency into a platform for his business dealings Mhh not really… Do you have RS for this assertion? The article does not say this at all. — JFG talk 17:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) JFG, that's my opinion, shared by many, but I have not proposed it for inclusion. Try to concentrate on my main point...that I think the suggestion is good wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC) @BullRangifer: OK, thanks for clarifying this was only a personal opinion. Regarding the text of the lead paragraph, I think both the prior version and the current version are perfectly fine, and there is no need to relaunch a debate to tweak it around. — JFG talk 09:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I don't agree that there's a "need" to include the date he took office. See Barack Obama (19 January 2017). And it's OK to leave the impression that he "is no longer a businessman" and that he is not "largely ignoring the emoluments clause". See WP:BLPSTYLE (material must be presented responsibly and conservatively). The "emoluments clause" applies to members of Congress, not Presidents. And the Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits accepting any benefit from a foreign "State", not a foreign business. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 17:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC) The emoluments clause may not apply to Presidents, but Trump's refusal to enact certain ethical measures that would reduce possible conflicts of interest have been noted by sources, for example here. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I don't know how this got sidetracked and devolved into an argument about something else entirely, but it's very irritating. Can we please focus on the matter at hand? While it is only a guideline, Anythingyouwant makes a valid point about having POTUS in the first sentence. That essentially brings us back to where we started: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017. Does this satisfy everyone? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Fixed typo from "January 17" to "20" 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Nice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I like the status quo better, because MOS:PARAGRAPHS says to minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs, and WP:BETTER says to use one-sentence paragraphs sparingly. When one-sentence paragraphs are used, the reason is typically to provide a transition or break between paragraphs of more than one sentence (inapplicable here), or to provide emphasis (also inapplicable here, because the opening paragraph automatically gets plenty of emphasis).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Given the enormous controversy surrounding this lede sentence, I would think the content is far more important that the vague guidelines you are suggesting we follow. Besides, the two-sentence version has only been in existence for 5 minutes, and so calling it the "status quo" is a stretch. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Minimize does not mean completely eliminate, it means don't use it if you can do better without. I agree with Scjessey on this one. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Did I suggest eliminating something from the lead paragraph?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC) You are suggesting that we should not have a one sentence paragraph. I am saying - ok, but only if if it's the best way to do it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Sure, I agree we should try to do things the best way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Arbitrary break Could you fix it like this? (forgive me as I'm new) Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United Statesa, and formerly a businessman, and television personality .PersistantCorvid (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) I frankly prefer either of the above 2 versions the the one you are proposing. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC) No problem, I was addressing someone's qualm about not putting him being president first lol.PersistantCorvid (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC) The trouble with doing it like this is that he's still a businessman. One of the chief complaints about Trump is that he has refused to extricate himself from his businesses in a manner consistent with that of past presidents. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) I don't think we should imply in the lead that he's not a full-time president, or that turning his business over to his sons was a phony move. Even if that's true (which I doubt), merely saying that he was in business before politics does not mean that he stopped being in business as soon as he uttered his first public political comment (or as soon as he announced his candidacy).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) I am vehemently opposed to any sentence that fails to describe Trump continues to be a businessman. He continues to own and profit from property, he continues to defend his brand, and he continues to participate in active litigation concerning both of these. Mike Pence is the "full time" VP, but he is still rightly described as a lawyer. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Believe it or not, I have the same opinion as you, Scjessy... I only made my suggestion that way as a compromise. I would much rather word it as "busnessman, and former TV personality." after the president bit.PersistantCorvid (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) It emphatically does not belong in the lead sentence. Many presidents continued to earn interest, profits, etc., while in office, FDR was wealthy, JFK was wealthy, Ronald Reagan was wealthy, but we don't say in their lead paragraphs that they continued to wheel and deal in the White House. Here is the Obama BLP at the end of 2016, and the lead sentence was: "Barack Hussein Obama II (... born August 4, 1961) is an American politician and the 44th and current President of the United States." Do we include law professor, community organizer, U.S. Senator, state legislator, published author, or Nobel peace prize winner, in the lead sentence? No, none of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Bad comparison. Those occupations are not the most notable ones. Sure, Obama was a law professor and a US Senator, but he's most notable for being US president (thus a politician). Similarly, Trump is most notable, yes for being US president, but also and equally for being a businessman and TV personality. Maybe in 50 years he won't be remembered for the other parts, but right now he is, so we should include it. Failing to mention it would be a major mistake. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC) It is mentioned, in the second sentence of the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Anythingyousay: Care to back up the claim that FDR and JFK "continued to wheel and deal in the White House"?? You have 2 shots left, then please deposit another 25 cents. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I have no more evidence that they did so than that Trump is doing so. Also, I agree with JFG (above in this section) that there is no need to relaunch a debate to tweak around the lead sentence so soon after a major discussion about it. And I agree with Devorguilla (above in this section) that there's no need to include the date he took office (but not the date he was elected) in the lead paragraph, nor any problem leaving the impression that he "is no longer a businessman". Lots of sources describe him as a former businessman, even NPR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I think this version by Scjessey was excellent: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017. The only improvement I would suggest is to make it "former" television personality, but that change is not essential. The current version is actually quite misleading in several ways. Here are the words in question: "Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." He entered politics as a candidate several times, beginning in 1988. This wording seems to ignore that and assume we're only talking about his presidency. At no time has he ever stopped being a businessman. We don't need to imply that he's wheeling and dealing now, but we shouldn't imply that he stopped being a businessman at any time, because he hasn't. The revised version by Scjessey is excellent and avoids all these problems. It also flows very nicely. I suggest we restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I agree with all of what you said. I like the version by Scjessey as well as the one I suggested, so I'm ok with his. But it would need a comma after "personality" so it doesn't look like it's implying he is formerly a politician also.PersistantCorvid (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Editors here are entitled to their opinions about whether Trump is still doing business deals. But we are not entitled to use wikivoice in the lead sentence of this BLP to contradict numerous reliable sources, including the following reliable sources and many more (emphasis added): NPR, March 24, 2017: "President Trump, the former businessman who has never been shy about touting his negotiating skills, has for several weeks been involved in a high-profile negotiation and persuasion effort with members of his own party in an effort to pass the American Health Care Act." People Magazine, December 23, 2016: "According to the 70-year-old former businessman, A-list celebrities are 'all wanting tix' to his inauguration, but he wants to keep things focused on 'the people.'" New York Daily News, March 19, 2017: "After supporting President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, Patriots owner Robert Kraft is flying on Air Force One with the former businessman Sunday." Chicago Tribune, January 17, 2017: "The site repeatedly referred to the former businessman as 'Mr. Trump,' not 'President Trump,' whereas Obama went by 'President Obama' on his administration's website." CNBC, March 8, 2017: "A former businessman, Trump runs his closed-door meetings with CEOs as if they were a corporate board meeting, attendees said." Fox News, February 11, 2017: "Trump, a former businessman and real estate magnate, is known for his deal-making, in fact having written a book in 1987 titled 'The Art of the Deal.'" Politico, April 5, 2017: "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday needled President Donald Trump to get tougher on trade with Beijing ahead of the former businessman's Mar-a-Lago meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping." NBC, February 24, 2016: "Like Trump Collins is a former businessman." UPI, March 29, 2017: "A pro-oil former businessman, Trump has sought to build support around the energy sector." AOL News, January 21, 2017: "While the Women's March has said it's not explicitly anti-Trump, many participants in the District of Columbia event expressed feelings of fear, anger and bitterness around the former businessman's 2016 election victory and campaign rhetoric." Roll Call, March 30, 2017: "The president met privately with Freedom Caucus members just hours before he and Ryan pulled the health care bill. But the former businessman, whom Spicer had deemed 'the closer,' was unable to strike a deal...." USA Today, March 9, 2017: "The former businessman and his administration have kicked off 'a full-court press' to get skeptical conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups to a 'yes' on the health care plan that was released by House Republican leadership Monday night." Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC) businessman. A man regularly employed in business, especially a white-collar worker, executive, or owner. businessman. A man who transacts business; especially, a business executive. (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) Before he entered politics, he was a businessman and TV celebrity. Before he became president, he was a businessman, TV celebrity, and politician. Now he's a TV celebrity and president. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC) He continues to own businesses and profit from them; therefore, he is a businessman. This is indisputable. The article was stable for weeks following the inauguration, and then the current version was put in after a series of hasty, broken discussions. My edit, which is almost identical to that previous stable version, enjoys broad support from editors in this thread, including PersistantCorvid, 69.165.196.103, BullRangifer, SirJoseph, and possibly more. Only Anythingyouwant has really voiced direct opposition. I think there's a clear consensus for the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Baloney. In this talk page section alone, User:JFG said: "Regarding the text of the lead paragraph, I think both the prior version and the current version are perfectly fine, and there is no need to relaunch a debate to tweak it around," and User:Devorguilla said, "it's OK to leave the impression that he 'is no longer a businessman'". Moreover, many many presidents have owned shares in businesses and profited from them, without being businessmen while in the White House. We had a lengthy discussion about this sentence ending a week ago.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) User:Dervorguilla.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Neither JFG, nor Dervorguilla, have said they don't approve of the version I introduced. You are the only editor who has specifically said no. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I never said that I "don't approve of the version" that you introduced. I phrased my objection differently, as did those other two editors. You have simply ignored (or at least not responded to) what I and Dervorguilla have said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I don't think either have you have said anything that invalidates this obvious improvement to the currently flawed lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Responding to ping. @Scjessey: The current lead paragraph is not "flawed", it is the result of consensus. It was not my preferred version but I approved it so that we reach closure. I do not condone either your proposal or any other change in the short term. — JFG talk 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC) @JFG: I disagree. It was a rushed close that took place while the discussion was still ongoing, and we are left with a mess that isn't representative of the facts - which is why this thread exists. This is a consequence of having eleventy billion active threads all discussing variations of the same thing, something I warned editors of several times during the process. And the notion that we need to stop discussing things because of some bullshit "consensus" is absurd. We can continue to improve every single word of the article whenever we choose. There is no prohibition on this, unless such activity is deemed to be tendentious in some way. This is not the case here. Several editors have legitimate concerns, and this proposal of mine is an attempt to fix it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Obviously, I'm not preventing you or anyone else to try and improve whichever parts of the article you deem perfectible. The lead sentence had consensus for a long time, then it recently evolved to a new consensus. Certainly if you can convince enough people to adopt your proposal, that will be the new new consensus. We're not there yet, but good luck! — JFG talk 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I would think "enough people" would be "almost everyone who has participated in this thread". There's broad agreement, with really only one editor outright trying to block the change. Now you say you don't "condone" any change, as if you're the article's owner. Is the proposed version, in your opinion, better than what we have, or not? A simple yes or no will suffice. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) No. And please strike your ownership accusation. — JFG talk 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I will not. Your use of "condone" indicates ownership issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Respectfully, you are mistaken. I could equally have used "endorse", "approve", "agree", "support", "back up" or "vindicate". — JFG talk 20:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC) CONDONE. "...accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue." Are we clear now? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Very clear. I neither endorse nor support nor condone your proposed version. — JFG talk 20:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure if I'm properly using the out-dent thing, if not, please tell me ... I know this may seem like beating a dead horse, but based on the definitions provided by Dervorguilla shouldn't Trump still be considered a "business man" currently, he hasn't relinquished ownership of his businesses, his sons only handle operations, they were not handed ownership over to them. I understand following RS, but aren't there RS that state this ownership status? In which case, the Wiki voice would be maintaining the definition of business man being " A man regularly employed in business, especially a white-collar worker, executive, or owner. " I'm still willing to follow consensus, I just wanted to bring up this point.PersistantCorvid (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC) I think that definition quoted by User:Dervorguilla referred to an owner who is employed in the business. Analogously, Jimmy Carter in 1981 returned to his peanut farm, and found that the trustees had screwed up leaving him one million dollars in debt. In any event, Carter was not a businessman while in the White House. He owned the farm then, but was not employed by it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC) I see, thanks for the counter-point. I'm sorry I didn't sign my last post, It slipped my mind lolPersistantCorvid (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Survey: Should the lead paragraph say in present tense or past tense that he is a businessman? The lead paragraph currently (since this survey was closed on April 2) says, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." Should we say in the lead paragraph that he (A) is a businessman, in present tense, or (B) leave it in past tense only?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC) !Votes Support B existing language (past tense) about business background.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Abort - See rationale above below. (My comment was removed without my permission, for some reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Discussion Editors here are entitled to their opinions about whether Trump is still doing business deals. But we are not entitled to use wikivoice in the lead sentence of this BLP to contradict numerous reliable sources, including the following reliable sources and many more (emphasis added): Open to see list of sources. *NPR, March 24, 2017: "President Trump, the former businessman who has never been shy about touting his negotiating skills, has for several weeks been involved in a high-profile negotiation and persuasion effort with members of his own party in an effort to pass the American Health Care Act." People Magazine, December 23, 2016: "According to the 70-year-old former businessman, A-list celebrities are 'all wanting tix' to his inauguration, but he wants to keep things focused on 'the people.'" New York Daily News, March 19, 2017: "After supporting President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, Patriots owner Robert Kraft is flying on Air Force One with the former businessman Sunday." Chicago Tribune, January 17, 2017: "The site repeatedly referred to the former businessman as 'Mr. Trump,' not 'President Trump,' whereas Obama went by 'President Obama' on his administration's website." CNBC, March 8, 2017: "A former businessman, Trump runs his closed-door meetings with CEOs as if they were a corporate board meeting, attendees said." Fox News, February 11, 2017: "Trump, a former businessman and real estate magnate, is known for his deal-making, in fact having written a book in 1987 titled 'The Art of the Deal.'" Politico, April 5, 2017: "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday needled President Donald Trump to get tougher on trade with Beijing ahead of the former businessman's Mar-a-Lago meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping." NBC, February 24, 2016: "Like Trump Collins is a former businessman." UPI, March 29, 2017: "A pro-oil former businessman, Trump has sought to build support around the energy sector." AOL News, January 21, 2017: "While the Women's March has said it's not explicitly anti-Trump, many participants in the District of Columbia event expressed feelings of fear, anger and bitterness around the former businessman's 2016 election victory and campaign rhetoric." Roll Call, March 30, 2017: "The president met privately with Freedom Caucus members just hours before he and Ryan pulled the health care bill. But the former businessman, whom Spicer had deemed 'the closer,' was unable to strike a deal...." USA Today, March 9, 2017: "The former businessman and his administration have kicked off 'a full-court press' to get skeptical conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups to a 'yes' on the health care plan that was released by House Republican leadership Monday night." Here is the Obama BLP at the end of 2016, and the lead sentence was: "Barack Hussein Obama II (... born August 4, 1961) is an American politician and the 44th and current President of the United States." Do we include law professor, community organizer, U.S. Senator, state legislator, published author, or Nobel peace prize winner, in the lead sentence? No, none of it, nor do we put any of that in present tense later in the lead. It is true that Trump owns substantial assets, but so have many presidents, and yet we do not suggest in their lead paragraphs that they were doing business deals even while occupying the White House. I note that we have an RFC closure earlier today that said,[2] “it is obviously 'okay' to say he was a businessman before entering politics.” I disagree with User:Scjessey who said "I am vehemently opposed to any sentence that fails to describe Trump continues to be a businessman" and "He continues to own businesses and profit from them; therefore, he is a businessman. This is indisputable." and I also disagree with him that consensus is already on his side to yet again change this aspect of the lead from past tense to present tense,[3] as he did yesterday.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Yet another malformed proposal, which gives your preferred version the "support" choice. This should be a binary choice ("A" or "B") between the two competing versions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) The survey question is "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he (A) is a businessman, in present tense, or (B) leave it in past tense only?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) No, it's horribly broken. I've created a neutral version below. Please wrap this up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC) You offer no plausible reason why it's "horribly broken". It would be better to focus on a specific issue rather than reopening all the many issues raised by the lead sentence. We just had a lengthy discussion that was closed on April 2.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) You've tried to fix it so many times, it's hard to know exactly what we are all meant to respond to. It continues to be a messy, wordy, source-laden salad that fails to show proper relevance to what this thread is actually about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC) You know that's false. The original survey question was: "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he is a businessman, in present tense, or leave it in past tense only?"[5] I merely inserted the letters "A" and "B" at your request. You know that very well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC) If you cannot see what you did wrong, there is little point in arguing further. Suggest this be hatted as the survey below is better formed. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC) The only specific thing you objected to was the absence of "A" and "B" so I inserted them. If you have any other objection, please state it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Survey: Choice between two options for the lede Please choose between these two competing options for the lede (1 or 2): Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality. - (existing version since April 2) Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017. Please do not complicate this binary choice by adding additional versions. We are simply trying to ascertain which of the two versions is preferred. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC) !Votes 2 - Support as proposer. It is basically a slightly adjusted version of the text that was relatively stable during the whole of February and March, with the addition of "45th and current". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Abort. This is a disruptive survey that immediately follows an ongoing survey above that the proposer of this survey dislikes. The prior survey offers a clear binary choice (A versus B), and sticks to a specific issue instead of completely reopening the lead sentence to a whole range of issues that were discussed in the lengthy survey that ended on April 2, five days ago.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC) It follows a malformed survey that you edited several times in a futile attempt to fix it. This is a clear, simple choice. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC) The survey I started has posed a simple binary choice from the very instant that I started it: "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he is a businessman, in present tense, or leave it in past tense only?"[6] You know that very well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC) No, your survey was setup to give your preferred version the "support" choice and you festooned it will a replication of the discussion that preceded it, such as lists of sources, etc. It's a mess. Then you started tweaking and changing it many, many times. This survey eliminates ALL the cruft and offers a simple choice without trying to influence the outcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Why not go and actually read what it says at the link you just gave: "Should we say in the lead paragraph that he is a businessman, in present tense, or leave it in past tense only?" That is a clear binary choice, and subsequently I merely inserted the letters "A" and "B" at your request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Your "survey" is still written to benefit your preferred choice. Just look at how you setup the "discussion" section, for goodness sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Am I not allowed to benefit my preferred choice by arguing for it in the discussion section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Your survey, which nobody asked for, was setup to try to force your view upon everyone else. No "discussion section" is needed, because discussion was already taking place in the subsection above. You are putting your finger on the scale. I don't understand why you are being so tendentious about this particular thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I have been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade, and never have I seen anyone object to a discussion section in a survey. You seriously want to bar new participants from discussing how they !vote? Sheesh. I am not the only editor who has disputed your assertion that the previous discussion above resulted in consensus (for your proposal to refer to business career in present tense). Do I need an Act of Congress to authorize a mere informal survey?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I have a long and storied Wikipedia history too (see my user page). It's not what you did, but how you did it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Please note that during the past eight years I never disrupted the Obama article. I am through speaking with you here for the time being, as I have sought advice from an admin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Discussion This is still an issue that needs resolving. The first sentence of our article is wrong, because Trump remained a businessman after entering politics, and continues to be a businessman who owns and profits from his businesses while being president. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC) No one (except perhaps yourself) disputes that "Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." The lead paragraph is ambiguous about whether he remained a businessman after becoming president, and many reliable sources say he did not. Instead of explaining why you disagree with those reliable sources, you have simply ignored them. Open to see list of sources. *NPR, March 24, 2017: "President Trump, the former businessman who has never been shy about touting his negotiating skills, has for several weeks been involved in a high-profile negotiation and persuasion effort with members of his own party in an effort to pass the American Health Care Act." People Magazine, December 23, 2016: "According to the 70-year-old former businessman, A-list celebrities are 'all wanting tix' to his inauguration, but he wants to keep things focused on 'the people.'" New York Daily News, March 19, 2017: "After supporting President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, Patriots owner Robert Kraft is flying on Air Force One with the former businessman Sunday." Chicago Tribune, January 17, 2017: "The site repeatedly referred to the former businessman as 'Mr. Trump,' not 'President Trump,' whereas Obama went by 'President Obama' on his administration's website." CNBC, March 8, 2017: "A former businessman, Trump runs his closed-door meetings with CEOs as if they were a corporate board meeting, attendees said." Fox News, February 11, 2017: "Trump, a former businessman and real estate magnate, is known for his deal-making, in fact having written a book in 1987 titled 'The Art of the Deal.'" Politico, April 5, 2017: "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday needled President Donald Trump to get tougher on trade with Beijing ahead of the former businessman's Mar-a-Lago meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping." NBC, February 24, 2016: "Like Trump Collins is a former businessman." UPI, March 29, 2017: "A pro-oil former businessman, Trump has sought to build support around the energy sector." AOL News, January 21, 2017: "While the Women's March has said it's not explicitly anti-Trump, many participants in the District of Columbia event expressed feelings of fear, anger and bitterness around the former businessman's 2016 election victory and campaign rhetoric." Roll Call, March 30, 2017: "The president met privately with Freedom Caucus members just hours before he and Ryan pulled the health care bill. But the former businessman, whom Spicer had deemed 'the closer,' was unable to strike a deal...." USA Today, March 9, 2017: "The former businessman and his administration have kicked off 'a full-court press' to get skeptical conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups to a 'yes' on the health care plan that was released by House Republican leadership Monday night." Per further news reports, "Trump will resign from all officer and other positions he holds in his businesses....". You simply brush all of this reliable reporting aside, just like you brush aside the binary choice presented in the previous survey (immediately preceding the present survey at this talk page), and brush aside the extensive survey that was closed on April 2.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Frankly, I like the ambiguity, as I think the situation is ambiguous. As an example, there’s a NYT article that calls him the “businessman president”[7] Objective3000 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) businessman Learner's definition of BUSINESSMAN 1. A man who works in business especially in a high position. "Businessman - Definition for English-Language Learners", Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant:. "Prior to entering politics" is the problem here. It's a lie. Trump entered politics much earlier when he first ran for office. His political activities substantially overlap with his business dealings and is TV career. "Prior to becoming President" might be slightly more accurate, although I continue to argue he is still engaging in business activities (example). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I resent your characterization of it as a lie, and resent your continuing refusal to address the plethora of reliable sources I've cited. I breathed prior to getting out of the hospital with my Mom, but that doesn't imply I stopped breathing once I got out of the hospital. I've already said that I wouldn't mind if we say "prior to entering politics full time" but that's obviously not necessary. I also wouldn't object to saying, "Prior to entering politics full time, he became a successful businessman and television personality." But, again, the current language is accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC) It's not a characterization. It is a fact. I have looked at your sources, but I have produced my own that shows his business dealings and political activity overlap. No, the current language is wrong. It just is. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC) The WaPo story says he's "benefiting from" his business, not "working in" it. Let's go with the Learner's Dictionary definition of the word. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I agree with User:Dervorguilla. Also, the Learner's Dictionary defines a "lie" like this: "to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone". In future, you may want to simply say that something is untrue, without accusing anyone of trying to be deceptive. Even if you can provide sources that say Trump is not a former businessman (please feel free to do so), the matter would be disputed given the many I have provided saying that he is, and we are not supposed to take sides in wikivoiceAnythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Let me put it another way. The first sentence of this BLP is factually inaccurate in that it falsely claims Trump stopped being a businessman and a TV personality when he entered politics. And the reason I used the word "lie" is because it is painfully obvious this is an attempt by some editors here to gloss over the facts to make Trump look better, and that is intent. And while I'm on a roll, you know it is nearly impossible to find sources to prove a negative. That's a classic tactic of an editor trying to push their POV. These are the facts, for fuck's sake: Trump became involved in politics as early as 1987. Trump ran for President in 2000, and even won two primaries. Trump ran for President in 2016, and won. He did not do anything to suspend his business activities until well into his transition. Trump was a businessman and TV personality throughout nearly 30 years in which he was active in politics. These facts show the first sentence is wrong. It's just plain wrong. It's a BLP violation. The alternative I offered, a compromise that used some of the language suggested by Anythingyouwant, fixed that. And it was reverted anyway. This is unacceptable behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC) @Scjessey: You are running afoul of DS; I recommend that you cool down and self-revert. There is plenty of space and time for you to attract consensus on your proposed change to the lead sentence. In the meantime, you must stop edit-warring over this. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I already partially reverted Scjessey. The overall effect of his edit and mine is merely to insert the words "full time", and such insertion is not clearly a revert. I also have no objection to such insertion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: Thanks for the note; it's great if you guys can agree on a proposed change; however, seeing that the conversation about this has mostly involved the two of you, the new wording would still need to be solidified by wider consensus on the talk page. If the current version is agreeable to Scjessey, I would suggest opening an informal survey for this specific change and giving other editors a couple days to weigh in. A new talk section at the bottom of the page would help people actually notice and understand what is being proposed. — JFG talk 21:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I dunno, it seems like it doesn't change the meaning significantly. Plus I've mentioned the possibility of inserting "full time" repeatedly (maybe five separate times) and no one ever objected to it. But if someone wants to start a survey limited to that narrow issue then it's no problem. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC) "No one objected" ≠ "Everyone agreed"… A survey would unambiguously decide the issue. But first, let's hear from Scjessey whether your edit is acceptable to him. — JFG talk 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC) @JFG: - No, I'm not "running afoul" of DS. @Anythingyouwant: - I don't like the loss of the word "politician" (I understand why Trump's acolytes don't like this), but at least the BLP violation is gone. @both - I agree to the compromise. I disagree we need a new survey. Anythingyouwant and I have been arguing over this for many days with almost nothing from anyone else. Recommend the language stays per WP:SILENCE. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC) @Scjessey: Thanks for your input. WP:SILENCE doesn't cut it for such a perennially contested phrase, especially on a page with hundreds of regular watchers; see Warnock's dilemma, particularly options #3 and #5. Anything and you have been talking to each other and my hunch is that most editors got bored of following you, hence the lack of reply to either your back-and-forth arguments or to your competing surveys. I know I had to make a conscious effort to read everything you guys wrote over the last few days… Now, if you both have reached a compromise position, that's great, and it's time to put it forward for a !vote. I'm fine with leaving the new wording in the lead while the !vote is ongoing, however if you decide not to hold a !vote I would not consider that your discussion represents a strong enough consensus, and probably other editors would be tempted to revert to the latest documented consensus wording (hasty or not, it involved a lot more people than just two). — JFG talk 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) User:JFG, if you don't want to start the survey then I could.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Fine by me. New section and short question please. (You know how that works…) — JFG talk 18:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC) There's nothing in WP:Consensus that makes this necessary, but if y'all want to waste everybody's time, knock yourself out. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC) The problem here is that it not possible to define a point where he started being a politician, or stopped being a businessman and television personality. To some extent he has been a politician for many years; he certainly continued running his businesses even while running for president; to some extent he is still a businessman and television personality. That ambigutiy is the problem driving this "is", "was", "prior to" debate. Maybe we could solve it by getting away from trying to define what he actually was or is, and instead saying what he was best known for. I propose "Prior to entering politics, he was best known as a businessman and television personality." What does anyone thing of that idea? (I did say below that I favor a moratorium on further discussion, but I'll make an exception here since the debate is already in progress.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey about "full time" in lead paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do you support the lead paragraph saying (A) or (B) or (C):

(A) "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics full time, he was a businessman and television personality."

(B) "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(C) "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics full time, he became a billionaire businessman and television personality." Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

!Votes about "full time" in lead paragraph

• Support A or C. Each is a harmless clarification that will apparently end a long controversy at this talk page. I also support the current version B. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support A per Anythingyouwant. Not what I wanted, but I didn't want Trump either so I'll just have to suck it up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate that your sense of humour is back on display! — JFG ^talk 21:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A – a useful and important detail, expressed tersely. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support B for stylistic reasons. A "surprises" the reader, who may wonder: Before he entered politics full-time, wouldn't he at some point have been a part-time politician (and a part-time businessman)? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support B, oppose A. Adding "full time" only muddies the issue and doesn't solve it. What is "full time"? When did he become full time? If it was when he declared for president, note that he continued being CEO and Chairman of The Trump Organization throughout the campaign, so during that time he was both a "full time politician" AND a businessman. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • P.S. Still support B, oppose C for several reasons. 1) I still don't like "full time." 2) We have consistently resisted saying "billionaire" in the lede. 3) "Became" is confusing, "was" is better even if it is a little imprecise (nowhere near as imprecise as "became"). --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support B, oppose "full time" - adds no meaningful content and per above comment, is not accurate. Also, this survey distracts from more important discussions and I don't see it's point - stop bickering over one ore two words and start improving content instead of launching RfC after RfC for one or two words in a paragraph that you don't happen to totally agree with. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support B, oppose "full time" violates WP:NPOV. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support B This hair splitting does nothing to improve the lead which in its current form succinctly covers all of the salient points. Where the lead is concerned, especially the opening paragraph, the first commandment is cover the most notable facts first, bearing in mind the KISS principle. The only thing these incessant attempts at tinkering and Surveys/RfCs ad nauseum are doing, is contributing to the lack of stability in the lead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support A - It's the best choice for me.PersistantCorvid (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Add future !vote For the record, I hereby log my permanent and perpetual Oppose !vote to any and all proposed changes to the wording of the current lead paragraph unless some future event renders the current wording factually inaccurate and or something occurs that is so obviously notable that it must be added to the lead. (Hypothetical examples... he ceases to be President for some reason or is impeached.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: The current wording is factually inaccurate. It gives the totally false impression that Trump ceased being a businessman and television personality when he got involved in politics. Since that happened in 1987, and to a much greater extent in 2000, it couldn't be more wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly correct and accurate. It states that prior to entering politics he was a business man and television personality. That is absolutely true. Anything beyond that is you reading things that are not stated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

But the use of "was" puts it in the past tense, implying he ceased being a businessman and a TV personality when he got into politics. The version I offered (in the discussion below) eliminates all ambiguity. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This constant going on about this sentence is becoming disruptive. Ad Orientem came up with a brilliant solution. Nobody had thought of this before. Someone with good sense, and an understanding of grammar, came in with fresh eyes and solved the problem. This thread is another example of the non-productive focus on trivia that ends up ruining sentences and taking up all our volunteer time. We could instead be concerning ourselves with bringing some order to the article. We need to identify sections that need immediate attention, and come up with solutions. The lede sentence has been solved. We need to move on. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support B - The words "full time" do not add clarity. I'm not even sure it's verifiable.- MrX 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion about "full time" in lead paragraph

Note that this matter has been discussed at length in various sections above (e.g. find the word "acolyte").Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest "From 1971 to 2017 he was chairman and president of The Trump Organization." Or "Prior to his inauguration on January 20, 2017, he was chairman and president of The Trump Organization."--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would work in the lead paragraph without explaining what the Trump Organization is and what it does. Before he entered politics full-time, Trump was a part-time politician and a part-time businessman, and before that he was a full time businessman, but we needn't say all that in the lead paragraph. Before he was in politics full time, he was a businessman of some sort — nothing surprising about that, and that's all option A says. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: "B" doesn't work because it is wrong. It gives the false impression his business and TV personality careers ended before he got into politics. He got into politics in the 1980s, and seriously into politics in 2000. He essentially stopped being a TV personality in 2015, and kinda stopped being a businessman at the beginning of this year (although some would argue he is still a businessman). That means there is significant overlap, particularly between his business and political careers. To my mind, this is a clear WP:BLPVIO, which is why Anythingyouwant quite rightly made the change before this (largely unnecessary) survey. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent analysis by Scjessey. Trump IS a businessman (but only competent in the world of real estate, and some would dispute that); that's his entire persona. Even politics has been carried on at a dabbling level, always with the aim of using it to further his financial interests. Some would even say that about his presidency, but this is a bigger bite than anything before, and he's been forced to hide his involvement in his businesses, but even that is done poorly.

So there are two things about mentioning him as a businessman: (1) there should not be left any impression that he is no longer a businessman or stopped being one; at the same time (2) we don't need to, and probably shouldn't, imply that he's actively supporting and benefiting his businesses, even though evidence every day seems to show he is constantly doing presidential affairs in ways which put money in his personal pocket. So just make sure that (1) is followed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The present survey has options A and B. I suggest we not get sidetracked away from them. Trump has resigned from all officer and other positions he holds in his businesses.[8] Neither A nor B explicitly says whether he's still a "businessman" or not. Many reliable sources say he is not.

List of sources:

• NPR, March 24, 2017: "President Trump, the former businessman who has never been shy about touting his negotiating skills, has for several weeks been involved in a high-profile negotiation and persuasion effort with members of his own party in an effort to pass the American Health Care Act."

• People Magazine, December 23, 2016: "According to the 70-year-old former businessman, A-list celebrities are 'all wanting tix' to his inauguration, but he wants to keep things focused on 'the people.'"

• New York Daily News, March 19, 2017: "After supporting President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, Patriots owner Robert Kraft is flying on Air Force One with the former businessman Sunday."

• Chicago Tribune, January 17, 2017: "The site repeatedly referred to the former businessman as 'Mr. Trump,' not 'President Trump,' whereas Obama went by 'President Obama' on his administration's website."

• CNBC, March 8, 2017: "A former businessman, Trump runs his closed-door meetings with CEOs as if they were a corporate board meeting, attendees said."

• Fox News, February 11, 2017: "Trump, a former businessman and real estate magnate, is known for his deal-making, in fact having written a book in 1987 titled 'The Art of the Deal.'"

• Politico, April 5, 2017: "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday needled President Donald Trump to get tougher on trade with Beijing ahead of the former businessman's Mar-a-Lago meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping."

• NBC, February 24, 2016: "Like Trump Collins is a former businessman."

• UPI, March 29, 2017: "A pro-oil former businessman, Trump has sought to build support around the energy sector."

• AOL News, January 21, 2017: "While the Women's March has said it's not explicitly anti-Trump, many participants in the District of Columbia event expressed feelings of fear, anger and bitterness around the former businessman's 2016 election victory and campaign rhetoric."

• Roll Call, March 30, 2017: "The president met privately with Freedom Caucus members just hours before he and Ryan pulled the health care bill. But the former businessman, whom Spicer had deemed 'the closer,' was unable to strike a deal...."

• USA Today, March 9, 2017: "The former businessman and his administration have kicked off 'a full-court press' to get skeptical conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups to a 'yes' on the health care plan that was released by House Republican leadership Monday night."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No neutral source would refer to a person who has never been elected to political office as a politician. That's a partisan talking point inserted to counter his assertion that he was not a politician when running for office. Incidentally, it's not effective unless one thinks that lack of experience is an asset. TFD (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that we not get sidetracked. Neither option A nor B uses that word. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and Scjessey: Scjessey and I would likely agree that from June 2015 to January 2017 Trump was a full-time businessman, a full-time politician, and a part-time TV producer/actor. The press has never once accused him of having neglected his duties as Chairman and President of The Trump Organization throughout his career there. WP:BLPSOURCES says the the article (lead or body) shouldn't suggest otherwise.

Trump is reported to sleep no more than three hours a day.

One might whimsically say that, like many hard-working Americans, he had to hold down two 40-hour jobs to pay the rent... ;)

"Prior to entering politics full time, he was a businessman" is contrary to fact. He was a businessman both prior to and subsequent to entering politics full time. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Suppose we were to say "Prior to entering politics full time he was a businessman, and after entering politics full time he may have remained a businessman to some degree and for some period of time". That's apparently what you're arguing. All the material before the comma is true, regardless of whether we include the vague stuff after the comma or not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I said what I said. I did not say "may", "to some degree", or "for some period of time". --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll rephrase what I said. Suppose the lead paragraph says this: "Prior to entering politics full time he was a businessman, and later he stopped being a businessman (at least a full-time one)." That's what you're arguing, right? Well, if we leave off everything after the comma, the sentence is still true, correct? I'm unaware of a consensus among reliable sources that say he stopped being a full-time businessman in January 2017, or that he remained a part-time businessman after January 2017, so this is not something that belongs in the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: What I'm getting at is that he was a full-time (30+ hours a week) businessman until he became a full-time (80+ hours a week) president, at which point he stopped being a businessman. By law, he was no longer even a 1-hour-a-week businessman. At least as far as BLPCRIME is concerned. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC) 17:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall reading that prior to the civil war, many many members of congress and cabinet secretaries were lawyers who continued to represent clients, and often argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of those clients. Where is the law that says Trump cannot earn any money on the side by doing business deals while president? I don't think he's done so, and certainly don't want him to do so, but know of no law forbidding it. Moreover, I'm not sure that he was a full-time businessman while campaigning around the clock for president, or while transitioning as president-elect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Point taken. Many RS do allege that the Emoluments Clause prohibits such conduct. But you're right and they are so wrong. However, the information that he's no longer employed as a businessman is now true per WP:BLPCRIME, for the reason that he's signed a legal document testifying to it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm moving this comment from the "!vote" section here to "discussion": I supported "B" and opposed "A" because adding "full time" does nothing to clarify the issue - even muddies it since he continued as Chairman and CEO of The Trump Organization even while running "full time" for president. I suggested above that we get away from the impossible task of trying to define what he is or was, and when, and focus instead on what he was "best known for". I proposed "Prior to entering politics, he was best known as a businessman and television personality." Thoughts? Or do I need to start a new section to propose this? (Realizing that I am the one that opposes starting new sections all the time.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. A or B would also be fine with me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we add this as option C? (up to you, it's your discussion) --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Welcome back! In my opinion, "best known as" would be unhelpful. And might re-launch the debate on whether he was "best known" as a real estate developer, as the Apprentice host, or as a "birther"… Such a discussion is just not worth the electrons! — JFG ^talk 17:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with JFG. Trump was still "best known as" a businessman and television personality after entering politics in 1999 (and up until his nomination). I have yet to come up with a better phrasing than the original. I suggest we table this proposal for 2 weeks, leaving the floor open for additional ideas. Who knows, some newcomer may even propose an elegant suggestion that we all immediately endorse. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Way up above on this talk page, I made a suggestion: "Prior to entering politics full time, he became a successful [or billionaire] businessman and television personality". Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There being no objection during the past several hours, I have added this to the survey I started. There are over 400,000 hits on Google for "billionaire businessman" and Trump.[9] And no one in his or her right mind can possibly dispute that he became a billionaire businessman and television personality prior to entering politics full time. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He entered politics full-time twice: in 1999 and in 2015. AFAIK no one has determined when he first became a billionaire. We do know he dropped out of the three-comma club in 2008 and rejoined it a few years later. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

He became a billionaire in the 1980s.[10]. That was prior to entering politics full time, by any measure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: One could argue that he became = came to be a billionaire in the 80s -- and then came to be a mere multimillionaire in the early 90s, per source. In order for him to come to be a billionaire again in 2015 he had to become a billionaire again. (Which takes a lot of time.) So we can both be correct here, odd as that may seem. Anyway, the point has become moot. :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A more elegant solution that would avoid the dispute over "full-time" would simply be "Prior to taking up the office of President, he was ..." Anybody agrees? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

An even more elegant solution would be to go back to the previous formulation that was stable for so long, and then add the "current" bit:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality and politician who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017.

Just because Trump became president, it doesn't mean he ceased being a businessman (or a TV personality, for that matter). He likes to project the image he is still a businessman, using those skills to negotiate deals with other nations, etc. As far as I can tell, the only objection anyone had to this version was that they didn't want the first paragraph to be a single sentence. That's pretty lame, quite honestly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The version to which you refer was also criticized for other reasons too, such as the way it treated the matter of whether Trump is currently in office or not, and the matter of whether he is currently a businessman or not, and the order in which those matters were treated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"the way it treated the matter of whether Trump is currently in office or not" - it clearly says "who became the 45th and current President of the United States on January 20, 2017." Agree that the wording could be better, but there's no factual issue with the statemant.
"whether he is currently a businessman or not" - Per Scjessey, yes he is.
"the order in which those matters were treated" - although we could defer to the other pages on US presidents (which all state "politician" first), I wouldn't, because Trump is a special case, since he is known for being a businessman as well as a politician, and the role which he has held for much longer is that of a businessman. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Scjessey is not a reliable source, and the date "January 20, 2017" was not in the previous stable version. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't WP:STONEWALL to the previous "stable version", if that version was perfect then we wouldn't be having this discussion. What Scjessey says, although I can't trace it directly to a new articles, seems accurate and the sentence in the form he proposed should be included. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not stonewalling. I support all three options in this survey. Any. Thing. You. Want. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

None of those options are great. I only support B (oops) support A because it is the least awful. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Scjessey, your !vote in the survey above is for version A. If you now prefer B (or dislike it the least), might you want to clarify your !vote in the survey? --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. Although I'm now at the point where I just want to throw my laptop out the window. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. See "Groundhog Day" below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Use alternative wording: "Prior to running for office"

Per the dispute resolution instructions in the lead of WP:MOS, rewrite to work around intractable disputes. This obvious solution here is to use "Prior to running for office" (or "public office" if you like), rather than "Prior to entering politics", since it moots both the "full-time" question and the "what does 'entering politics' really mean?" question, and actually improves the wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

We're probably going to end up with the current version, which is kind of an ambiguous version, but ambiguity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Keep in mind he's run for office not once but twice. He's only entered government once, though. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

People will most likely assume (rightly so) that it refers to the "second time" he ran for office. As such, I see no objection to the proposal. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, but oppose. He ran for office twice, and remained an active businessman throughout both campaigns, so "prior to running for office he was..." is inaccurate. By attempting to clarify this situation, the proposal only makes it worse. As others have pointed out, in this case we probably do need to be a little ambiguous, because it is not possible to nail down when (or if) he stopped being a businessman or a television personality. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for same reason. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopening discussion about 'Universities in infobox'

The "Universities in infobox" discussion reached a consensus about which universities to show in the Alma Mater field: namely, "The Wharton School". The discussion title said nothing about adding a degree or a course of study, but the editors reached a consensus to show them anyway.

One relevant reason was given: The college itself makes a point of showing them.

Wikipedia doesn't, though. See Template:Infobox person. The Education field usually includes the "degree, institution, and graduation year, if relevant." The Alma Mater field is "more concise"; it most often includes just the name of the last-attended institution.

The Barack Obama infobox accordingly reads, "Education: Occidental College | Columbia University (BA) | Harvard University (JD)".

The Trump infobox currently reads, "Alma mater: Wharton (B.S. Econ.)". It can be brought into near accord with the orginal consensus, with the template instructions, and with precedent if we change it to read, "Alma mater: The Wharton School (B.S.)". --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wharton specifically makes a point of calling it a B.S. Econ.[11] Objective3000 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not put this under "Education" instead of "Alma mater" then? — JFG ^talk 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Good point, although UPenn calls it "B.S. in Econ." (not "B.S. Econ."). Am amending my proposal accordingly.

Alma mater: The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)

Links and thin-space characters added per MOS:ACRO. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I concur, but I'm trying to make a compromise edit per WP:CON. We'll most likely end up using the same format as the Barack Obama infobox, but we may be able to get there through WP:SILENT consensus, by making one conservative edit at a time. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. I don't care whether it's listed under Education or Alma Mater, but I think we had consensus on showing Wharton and B.S. Econ. Your style change is compatible with that consensus, so no problem imho. Except don't use <small> in infobox for accessibility. — JFG ^talk 19:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New Trump-related article

Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration has been created as part of a school project (not mine), and probably needs significant work. Editors are invited to participate. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Man, that's a mess! It is written like an evaluation of his policy, an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest several of us get to work on a significant rewriting. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually that was harsh; the article isn't that bad, and it gives us a good framework to build on. But we need to get rid of the essay-type aspects of it, to convert it from an evaluation of Trump's policy to simply a report on it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been helping another group from this class at Draft:Environmental impacts of the War on Drugs and I believe the class had a trip to ANI because they're basically writing POV essays (that could be just my imagining things in my watchlist though). I'll be happy to take a look at the Trump policy one and see what I can do to try to help. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on a rewrite of the lede section, but I won't be able to post it until later today. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually I just posted a partial rewrite, hopefully eliminating most of the essay and evaluation tone of the original lede. It needs more work. I'll be busy for the next several hours, so Tony, feel free to work on it; we won't edit-conflict. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump Tower image

The image of Trump Tower in the article has very nasty artefacts around the edges of the buildings. Is there a better one that could be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.155.196 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the notice. — JFG ^talk 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Context/grammatical error

Can someone change this context/grammatical error? "Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." to "However, before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.". Also if you're wondering why I directly edited this its because I can't find the damn post button. NitrocideWP (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a grammar error in the current prose, much less one that would be corrected by your suggestion. Besides, adding "however" might be construed as editorializing, which is not encyclopedic. Finally, there is a dedicated thread and an open survey above, if you wish to discuss the lead sentence further. — JFG ^talk 09:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

205.122.73.147 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done no request made --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1987 and 2012

As discussed previously, Trump's thoughts about running for POTUS in 2012 are not significant enough for the lead, though that certainly can go later in the article. He actually ran in 2000, which is why that has been included in the lead but 2012 hasn't been. As far as 1987 is concerned, that was his first big foray into politics, with ads placed nationwide, but he didn't specifically say he was aiming for POTUS; a spokesperson said: "There is absolutely no plan to run for mayor, governor or United States senator. He will not comment about the Presidency." Regarding birther stuff in the lead, that's been discussed here before,[12] with the conclusion being that it ought to go in the article body (where there is more room) but not in the lead. If it does go in the lead, then I think that would have to include the fact that Obama did ultimately release the info, and the fact that Trump did ultimately acknowledge his eligibility, but then it would be undue weight for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So... you have started this thread to suggest we change... nothing? Not sure what the point of this is. For what it's worth, the only thing you talk about that I think is lede-worthy is the whole "birther" issue (and I'm fine leaving it out), since he arguably wouldn't have had a shot at the presidency had he not raised his profile with that pile of bullshit. I also disagree that we would need to mention that Obama released his certificate, or that Trump reluctantly acknowledged Obama's eligibility because neither of those facts have anything to do with Trump's rise to power. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I started this thread for an actual reason. 😲 Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not aware of that edit. My bad. I agree with your reversion, although I think an argument could be made for including the birther stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

69.67.84.14 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No request 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The protests section

Currently it looks like this:

Protests

Main article: Protests against Donald Trump

Underneath main can we put:

See also: Timeline of protests against Donald Trump

because it's already at the top of Protests against Donald Trump -- BoredBored (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As soon as anyone goes to Protests against Donald Trump they'll see a hatnote pointing to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump, so I don't think we need to make the proposed edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Section: Economy and trade

Photo caption: Trump speaking to automobile workers in Michigan in March 2017 219.79.97.124 (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 09:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Nickname: The Tanned Potato 108.181.244.35 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Propose moving off 'side ventures'

I think it's time to move off 'side ventures' to the relevant sub-articles and would like input from others. Also, if there are other sections that could be reduced and moved, please mention them. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, it seems like there is more sentiment to now trim the presidency section, so that we don't need any fourth-level headers anymore. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Those side ventures were a significant part of his life: yes to trimming the prose, no to forking them out completely. Details are already covered in Business career of Donald Trump, so a dedicated fork is not needed (although that article could well shed some fat too). The areas that need most trimming are the campaign stories, political positions and "first 100 days", all covered extensively in several daughter articles. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't really key features of his life. They seem more like extending his brand. This should be moved off with a paragraph or two left in place. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with reducing the "Side ventures" that much. On the other hand, the material in the presidency section is ridiculously over-detailed at this point. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing on transfer to Wharton

Two sources are currently cited for this. One won't show up for me despite apparently having been checked a few weeks ago, and the other ... well, we cite it as saying he chose to go there for the real estate department, and while it does say that, that's not really what the source is saying. I'm wondering if a source can be reliable enough for a relatively innocuous statement like "Trump wanted to study real estate" but we can cherry-pick that relatively innocuous statement when what the source is actually saying is "Trump wanted to study real estate, but, concerned that he, like his father, would not be accepted to Wharton straight-off, spent two years studying elsewhere before transferring in with the help of a family friend in Wharton's admissions office". If the full detail would be insufficiently-sourced for BLP purposes, I don't think we should be citing this source at all, as it looks like we are creatively interpreting what the source says by neglecting the actual point the author was making. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The links in both footnotes work for me, but I have edited the Boston Globe footnote to include an archived version as well. Here is what the text currently looks like:

In August 1964, Trump entered Fordham University. After two years at Fordham, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, because it offered one of the few real estate studies departments in United States academia at the time.[1][2]

The two footnotes are as follows:

[1] Blair, Gwenda. Donald Trump: Master Apprentice, p. 16 (Simon & Schuster, 2005). ISBN 978-0-7432-7510-1.
[2] Viser, Matt. "Even in college, Donald Trump was brash", Boston Globe (August 28, 2015). Archived here.

Here's what the Globe says about it:

Trump said in the interview that it was his having spent so much time away from home that led him not to apply to Wharton as a freshman. Instead, he spent his first two college years living at home in Queens and commuting to Fordham. "I had very good marks. And I was a good student generally speaking," Trump said. "But I wanted to be home for a couple of years because I was away for five years. So I wanted to spend time home, get to know my family — when you’re away, you’re away right?" After two years at Fordham, "I got in quickly and easily" to the Wharton undergraduate program, Trump said. "And it’s one of the hardest schools to get into in the country — always has been." Around the time Trump was admitted, there were 8,000 candidates vying for 1,700 spots in the freshman class, according to school records. The process could be more difficult for transfer students like Trump. Tuition was $1,770 for the academic year.

Here's what Blair says:

What he cared about was that Wharton had one of the few real estate departments in American academia. His older brother had identified the school as the top choice for Fred’s successor, but had been unable to gain admission. Heeding Freddy’s example, he had not applied to Wharton right off. Instead, he earned two years’ worth of respectable grades at Fordham, had an interview with a friendly Wharton admissions officer who was one of Freddy’s old high school classmates, and then transferred into the real estate department.

We need to properly distinguish between the father and brother; Fred was the father, Freddy was the brother. It was the brother who couldn't get into Wharton. Blair says Donald went to Fordham to build up a good academic record for transfer purposes, whereas the Globe indicates he also wanted to get to know his family after five years at boarding school. Maybe both reasons are correct, but I don't think we have to get into detail about it. The point is that he chose Wharton because it had a good real estate program, which seems well-sourced. And Blair says the admissions officer was merely a classmate of his brother (as distinguished from a family friend who knew Donald's father), and that the admissions officer was "friendly" as distinguished from "helpful" or "corrupt" or "biased", so I don't think we're cherry-picking here. The implication is that Donald Trump got good grades at Fordham...good enough to legitimately get into Wharton. I could try and get further sourcing on this, but it doesn't seem necessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What Freddy Jr did is not relevant here. This is Donald Trump's article. And no, we don't really need to make such a distinction since Donald Trump's name is Donald Trump, not Fred Trump or Freddy Trump, Jr. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the Blair source (the only one I could access, for whatever reason). Blair refers to both "Fred" (our subject's father) and "Freddy" (which, out of context, I assumed was the same person). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Bankruptcy header

The header currently says "Bankruptcies and other legal affairs". I suggest prefacing with the word "Business" because otherwise it sounds like he personally went bankrupt multiple times, when actually he never did. It's true that we're talking about a subheader under the "Real estate business" header, but that is not dispositive, as the section discusses lots of personal things including his personal wealth resulting from his business, and readers will assume he had personal bankruptcies as a result of his business. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to emphasize this distinction in the section header. The prose already says: Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, but his hotel and casino businesses have been declared bankrupt six times between 1991 and 2009. However, the newly-combined section would more appropriately be titled "Legal affairs and bankruptcies", because the corresponding {{main article}} is called Legal affairs of Donald Trump, of which bankruptcies are but a subset. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A bankruptcy is a legal affair, which is why bankruptcies are covered in Legal affairs of Donald Trump. So a heading that treats them as separate things is incongruous. And just because the misleading header is clarified within the section is not very helpful, because many people skim the headers without reading all the section contents. How about "Legal affairs including business bankruptcies"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, as bankruptcies are indeed part of legal affairs, perhaps just "Legal affairs" would do then? Seriously, we're saying the same thing, but bankruptcies of the Trump casinos are well-known, so it would beg invite questions if that word was not in the section headers. I still see no need to add the "business" qualifier, but let's see what other editors think. — JFG ^talk 22:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The concept of Begging the question is unfortunately very ambiguous nowadays, so I avoid the term. According to the lead of the Wikipedia article, "Many consider these usages incorrect in contexts that demand strict adherence to the technical definition." I think you mean "invite questions" when you say "beg questions". And I would agree, "bankruptcies" should be in the header. So, I don't understand the problem with "Legal affairs including business bankruptcies". Do you agree that many people skim through the headers without necessarily reading the contents of the sections? For those people, I'd like the header to be clear that Trump didn't go bankrupt. Some of his businesses did. What's the harm? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right about "begging the question"; I never quite understand what people mean when saying that. I did mean "would invite questions" and have amended my comment accordingly.

The header you suggest is simply too long compared to all others. Why not "Legal affairs including business bankruptcies, sexual misconduct allegations, casino litigants and breaches of contracts"? — JFG ^talk 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Legal affairs including business bankruptcies" is 45 characters. In the Hillary Clinton article (a featured article), we have the header "Marriage, family, law career, and First Lady of Arkansas" which is 56 characters. So it's not a particularly long header. I am flexible here; we can just call the section "Legal affairs" or (my preference) "Legal affairs including casino bankruptcies" (which is only 43 characters). But I really am adamantly against putting "bankruptcies" in the header without any qualifier because I think it's misleading to readers who are merely scanning the headers without reading all the contents. That's a lot of readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my! If you're going to cite WP:OTHERCRAP then at least don't pick one of the most awful coatrack headers of all Wikipedia! I'd split that into "Marriage and family", "Law career" and "First Lady of Arkansas". Irrelevant here. — JFG ^talk 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to discuss this with you. The John McCain article is also featured, and has a header "Commanding officer, liaison to Senate, and second marriage" which is also much longer than the one we're discussing. You haven't denied that many readers will read the headers of this BLP without reading every section fully, and you haven't denied that many readers who only read this header will assume that Trump went bankrupt, and you haven't denied that only his businesses went bankrupt rather than him going bankrupt. So this just seems like the usual Wikipedia gabfest where editors don't seem to be getting anywhere. Don't you see that your concern (slight verbosity in a header) pales in comparison to my concern (misleading readers and disparaging a BLP subject)? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that McCain header is just as crappy if you ask me. Back to your central issue: 3/4 of the world are already convinced that Trump went bankrupt and somehow inherited his wealth from his father; I don't think a header will change their mind. Few people pause to wonder how Trump managed to turn a "small million dollar loan" into a 3.5 billion fortune. I bet few people fully understand the difference between a business bankruptcy and a personal one. The prose is enough to make that distinction, and it makes it squarely. There is no BLP issue because we are in his real estate section and we plainly say that he never went bankrupt personally. — JFG ^talk 01:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We just strongly imply in the header that he went bankrupt personally because of his business failures. User:JFG, I suggested above the alternative heading "legal affairs". What's your opinion about that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but I suspect other editors wouldn't. I think "Legal affairs and bankruptcies" is the appropriate summary. Alternately, we could place bankruptcies as a sub-header in the casinos section, or as a followup section called "Casino bankruptcies". That would fit the roughly chronological narrative and keep bankruptcies in context including at TOC level. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A subheader in the casino subsection would be a fourth level subheader, and I am sympathetic with Susan's desire to keep fourth level subheaders out of this BLP. "Legal affairs and business bankruptcies" is not overly long (only 39 characters), and I'd also be okay with "Legal affairs and casino bankruptcies" (37 characters). I could support either one even though it makes it sound like bankruptcies are not legal affairs. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Business" is unnecessary disambiguation since Trump has not had any personal bankruptcies.- MrX 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No one said it's needed for disambiguation. Many people will assume that the bare word "bankruptcies" in a BLP refers to personal bankruptcies, which it does not in this instance. So it's necessary clarity, not necessary disambiguation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Why he went to Fordham

We say why he chose to transfer from Fordham to Wharton: the latter had a real estate program. But we don't mention why he initially chose Fordham: because it was close to home and he had been away at boarding school for five years. Why not say so? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.[13] Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: That's not consensus. The rule is, you cannot re-add something that has been challenged without obtaining consensus. It is totally irrelevant why Trump went to Fordham. Only the transfer to Wharton is relevant. Talking to yourself about it on the talk page does not count. This is the editing notice:

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm."

Your edit was challenged and you have not obtained consensus.

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to give a reason why you don't want this BLP to mention why Trump went to Fordham, or to mention that Fordham was located near his home? I assume that you must have some reason in mind, instead of being disruptive and contrarian. If you won't give a reason at this talk page, then maybe the material will be restored at some point by other editors who do offer reasons. Trump was away for five years at boarding school, and wanted to be at home for awhile. Reliable sources find that relevant to his biography. As to me violating discretionary sanctions, no I didn't. You removed a whole bunch of material without explaining why even after I requested explanation, so I restored only a small part of it, not knowing whether that small part is what inspired you to delete the larger chunk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You removed a whole bunch of material without explaining why even after I requested explanation. . . No, I did not. You opened this thread, asked a question, and answered it yourself. That's disruptive. You were not here to engage in anything but restoring your edit without getting consensus. That's disruptive. As I already mentioned above, there's no reason to add why he went to Fordham. Eighteen year-old local boy goes to local college. Nobody in America has ever done that, then? This is not relevant. It obviously didn't bother him to be 2.5 hours away from home by train and subway when he transferred to Wharton. Who cares why he picked Fordham. Leaving to go to Wharton is relevant. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to start a discussion, waited twelve hours, and heard only dead silence. So I guessed that you removed the material because it mentioned film school, and accordingly put back the stuff other than film school in a (vain) attempt to respect your unexplained wishes. I would also mention that many people were born in 1946, it wasn't unusual to be born in 1946, and yet it is so significant that he was born in 1946 that we put it into the lead sentence. Something does not have to be unusual to belong in a proper biography. It's not unusual that the college he picked was close to home, or that he wanted to be at home after five years away. But it's very significant biographically, and it also looks weird to say why he chose Wharton but not say anything about why he went to Fordham. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what the "reply" function is for. You ping someone if you want to get their attention. It does not "look weird" to say why he transferred to Wharton. You do know that the analogy you're making with birthdates in a biography is ridiculous? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is to purge this BLP of any hint where Fordham is located, any hint that it was close to his home, and any hint that he chose it so he could be with his family after five years away. That's as ridiculous as just about anything I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Locations of schools

Does anyone have any objection if I revert this edit which removed the locations of his schools? I think it's useful information for people who don't know where the schools were located. That info was in the BLP for quite a while, but was removed by User:Emir of Wikipedia. The edit was three days ago, but I don't think it's too late to revert per WP:BRD. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do object. I don't think there's a problem with removing the towns. The schools have links if anybody is interested they'll go to the link. That article they find will mention the location. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for not making me talk to myself again! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: A lot of schools have multiple branches and campuses, so it makes sense to add the city. Also, I think many readers would want to know where the subject went to school -- meaning, which city and which school. I don't think they should have to read a linked article to find out. (See WP:BTW.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is what WP:SOB (gotta love that acronym) says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." Things like Fordham and Wharton are comparable to highly technical terms. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was not necessary as a reader who is interested could just click the link. In the case of the New York Military Academy it was also a bit repetitive writing New York even though the names indicates it is almost certainly in New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia, okay, we could omit the town where NYMA was located, but Fordham is a different matter because its name gives no clue. He chose it because it was close to home, and even if a very few readers know that Fordham is in New York State, even fewer readers know it's in NYC. Per WP:SOB, we shouldn't make readers chase links. Would you be okay with saying that Fordham is in NYC? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but the version I removed stated the Bronx. I think we need to decide whether we want to state that it is the Bronx borough, NYC, or the state of New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC}

The link to Fordham will identify the location of the school. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, have you looked at WP:SOB? It says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." Do you disagree with WP:SOB? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The rule does not apply since it is not a 'technical term.' It's the name of a well-known Uni. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well-known by whom? As a foreigner, I had never heard of Fordham University before reading the Trump article. On the other hand, I knew about Wharton as a prominent business school. — JFG ^talk 20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I live in Manhattan and didn't know where Fordham was.:) Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Your comment, Thanks for not making me talk to myself again is inappropriate. Nobody here is making you do anything. You are responsible for your behavior here. Not anyone else. In addition, nobody here is obligated to respond within a time frame you set.

1) You persistently violate the 1RR.

2) You persistently exhibit extreme WP:OWN of the article. You become, let's call it 'exercised' whenever anybody reverts or changes one of your edits. You are constantly adding and deleting and moving things on the article without any consent and yet when anybody else does that, you revert them.

3) When we get a consensus for something, you immediately start a new thread to overturn it.

4) Recently, when two discussions were not going your way, you opened RfC's that were designed to sink that consensus, while not resolving anything.

5) It's time the admins did something about this behavior. @Ad Orientem:, @MelanieN:, and any other Admin willing to address this behavior.

SW3 5DL (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

SW3, as you know, I do not function as an admin here; I am WP:INVOLVED and am simply a regular editor. But I will say that If you think you have a case for DS sanctions (if that's what you are trying to say), you need to make that case, using recent diffs, at the AE board. Not just demand on this page that "something be done" without providing any evidence of any use to an uninvolved administrator. Admins are not expected to go hunting through the history to find out what you are talking about.

Anything, speaking as one editor to another: it is unreasonable for you to allow only 12 hours for input before deciding you can go ahead and act on your own. We on Wikipedia are spread out through time zones all over the globe. And we all have lives, so that we are not on Wikipedia all the time. Sometimes we may (hard as it may be to believe) go for a day or two without logging on at all. If nobody responds immediately to what you said, they are not "making you talk to yourself"; they are simply being volunteers who do not spend 24 hours a day here. IMO you should wait at least 48 hours before declaring "nobody has responded so I will go ahead and make my edit." Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, I guess it depends whether I ping another editor, whether they're actually editing Wikipedia during the twelve hours, et cetera. I say "et cetera" because there are other factors too, e.g. was the edit that I objected to accompanied by a factually incorrect and cryptic edit summary? Such as this one which claimed that "nothing" was being removed. Generally speaking, I haven't run out of patience after 12 hours often here, and can't remember the last time. I've been trying lately to overhaul this BLP so it will have a shot at GA, which is very laborious given the sorry state this BLP has been in since he won the GOP nomination. If I had to wait 12 hours between each of my recent edits, we'd be well into the year 2018 right now, so I don't want to give any other editor an ability to bog things down like that. Have you nothing to say about the other editor's incorrect and cryptic edit summary which erroneously claimed to be removing "nothing"?[14] Anyway, it looks like you have suggested that that other editor might have better success against me by putting together a DS case, so maybe this discussion will soon be moot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not suggest that they file a case (thanks for revising that). I said IF that's what SW3 has in mind, that's how they have to do it. Not simply demand at an article talk page that "something be done". --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the latter approach is certainly easier for me. 🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• SW3 5DL Thanks for the ping but like Melanie I have recently edited the article. So unless we are talking about naked vandalism or some other specie of obviously disruptive editing I pretty much am just another editor on here. If I can manage to get through a month or two without doing any editing on the article I might be able to call myself uninvolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Ad Orientem and MelanieN: Thanks for the explanations from both of you. While you cannot block him, at least as editors, you can comment on his behaviors when you see them, or another editor draws your attention to them. You can also clearly see he dominates the editing here and attempts to block any editor from adding/deleting as they see fit. There is no regard for others, it's always somebody else's fault, and he never seems to modulate his behavior when it is pointed out to him. That's disruption. When you see it, please do something about it. Call him on it, or call another Admin to address it. As you've noted, we are volunteers here. We deserve some consideration, too. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope they will do so with respect to me, and also with respect to you. I also suggest that if you want to make a revert on a tumultuous high-profile BLP like this one without making any talk page comment beforehand, then you ought to do so only if willing to wait around for at least ten minutes to participate in any WP:BRD discussion that is started, instead of leaving for 12 hours or more. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You've totally failed to take in what MelanieN has said. I rest my case. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should give addresses for well-known schools. It's more important anyway that Fordham and Wharton are among the most prestigious schools in the U.S. than that they are respectively in the Bronx and Philadelphia, yet that is not mentioned. Articles are written for people who have general knowledge and would have heard of these two schools. If they have not, then they can click the links. TFD (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Fordham is well known. The link takes care of any questions. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt any of ua are authorities on whether Fordham is "prestigious" or "well known". The general rule would be that readers should have to click the Fordham University link if and only if they're interested in the subject of that article (the school) rather than this article (Trump and his whereabouts). See "wiki-hole" ("Going to Wikipedia to look up a simple piece of information, and ending up spending several hours reading about things you didn't know existed"). --00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, it's the place to go to click on links so you can learn about things you don't know. Whether you spend hours doing it, is up to you, but the information is there anytime you want it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversies & Personal life suggestions

• Controversies section

This should be a section, not a subsection hidden under the 2016 Presidential campaign because the issue of his tax returns is on-going and the sexual allegations were before he became a candidate. They were simply raised during the campaign, but did not occur during the campaign. Most BLP's with controversy sections have them towards the end of the article in their own section. I don't think this is a BLP question since this subsection is reliably sourced.

• Personal Life section

The Personal Life section would be better at the start of the article, like Barack Obama's article. This is basic information most readers would want to know and is due weight, especially as Trump has had multiple marriages which raise common questions for readers. In the meantime, the 'ancestry' section has been given a position and prominence that seems undue weight. It is interesting history, but being separated from Personal Life gives the first impression that this is all the article has to say about his family.

I think we should make Controversies it's own section, with the taxes and sexual allegations as subsections, and Personal Life should be moved back to top of the article and the ancestry section could be a subsection that comes last, not first in that section per due weight and reader interest.

SW3 5DL (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Controversies section is now at the bottom as its own section. It's no longer buried. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The personal info is now at the top in a "Family and personal life" section, more or less chronologically. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great job. Looks reads much better now. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is better. I have further merged the single-paragraph "Early life" section with "Education" into "Early life and education" which is the usual section name in biographies. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Should we really have a Controversies section here? As far as I know, they are strongly discouraged in BLPs, especially in those of politicians. Notice Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush don't have them, for instance. I would suggest incorporating these controversies into other sections. (And also, there are probably too many controversies surrounding Donald Trump for one section.) κατάσταση 02:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

we should not have controversy sections. Controversies should be incorporated into relevant sections. For example, the tax returns came up as an issue during the primaries and has been raised repeatedly since. It was never an issue before he ran for office. Notice that Adolph Hitler has no controversy section, although he was more controversial than Trump, even in his first 100 days. TFD (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The taxes are an ongoing issue. He'll be expected to release his returns in 2018, like other presidents have done. If we eliminate the controversies section, then I think it would be best to put the taxes under his wealth or some other section that makes sense rather than leave them in the campaign section. They seem buried there. The sexual allegations could go back to the campaign or the media section. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had initially grouped all controversies into their own section but really they were all campaign issues, so I moved them there, then somebody moved them back into a separate section. Here's my opinion on each issue:

• Foreign interference in election: campaign issue which has somehow morphed into its own monster issue of American or even worldwide politics, keep it short here, leave the gory details to the Russian interference page.
• Sexual misconduct allegations: Trump was always a womanizer and his sex life had been tabloid fodder for decades, but nobody cared before the campaign, and nobody cares now; the Access Hollywood scandal was a typical October surprise, I really don't see a point emphasizing this aspect of his bio outside of the campaign context, where it did have an influence.
• Non-release of tax returns: either campaign issue or subsection of wealth section, however I feel it had more impact on the campaign side (again, nobody cared about his taxes before he ran for president).

Further opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely abhor "controversies" sections. Controversial issues should be woven into an article just like any other stuff. Besides, we already have a "controversies" section: a first-level heading titled "Donald Trump" at the top of the page. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The taxes are ongoing and should have their own section. The sexual allegations should not be placed where it appears they are being kept out of sight. That's the problem right now. Same with the family section being put down at the bottom of the article. I didn't see a reason for that at all unless someone is squeamish that he's been married three times. The article needs to conform to other BLP's of presidents. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have cancelled the separate Controversies section by moving the tax returns section adjacent to the wealth section (and consolidated a bunch of duplicate text), and the sexual misconduct section back into the campaign section. They are both level 3, which takes care of Susan's initial concern. — JFG ^talk 15:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI You reverted the edit and have now made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Per WP:BLP#BALANCE, a non-neutral BLP section heading must be removed immediately. More generally, "segregation of text into different regions, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial' and therefore more likely to be false". (WP:STRUCTURE.) So, any BLP section headed "Controversy" may be immediately reverted (and perhaps moved to Talk for discussion).

No "Controversy" section should ever be added to a BLP without first getting consensus. And I would have to oppose, per cited policies. I see no consensus to add it. Thanks for spotting the edit and reverting. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: It looks like that's moot now. I don't see anyone arguing to keep it and JFG has already reverted the edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)