Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Merging "Ties to Russia" with "Other real estate activities" and rename merged section

The section now titled "Other real estate activities" is very short and mainly deals with international stuff, so I think it should be merged with the "Ties to Russia" section (maybe call the merged section "Expansion worldwide"). It's true that there's a separate Wikipedia article about his business in Russia, but there are many Trump-related wikilinks already in this BLP without corresponding headers or subheaders. Note that there is already a subsection further down titled "Foreign interference in election" which is appropriate and is the main place for discussing Russia investigations and the like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "International expansion" sounds better, and the Russian bit can be merged there, as it talks only of his (failed) real estate projects in that country. His alleged collusion with Russia during the election campaign is covered elsewhere in the article. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, ties to Russia explains a long history of Trump's work in Russia. That is of interest to people who might inquire about collusion. As I recall, that section ended with a statement that says Trump has no business in Russia as of 2017. Kindly leave the word Russia in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think "Russia" ought to explicitly be in the table of contents, let's change "Foreign interference in election" to "Russian interference in election". Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am out of sync. Yes, I like your idea -- put Russian interference in election in if that is possible. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. Russia remains in the TOC, but not twice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What? Where's the consensus? You're ignoring the discussion above. Ties to Russia is not the same as Russian interference in the election. [1]. Ties to Russia should be put back as MrX had it. That has support. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted myself, since you object. No one ever said or implied that ties to Russia is the same as Russian interference in the election, but I suppose that I must respect your objections anyway. After all, three editors in this section seem to agree, and you disagree, so we'll do it your way for now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, 'Ties to Russia' (or 'Activities in Russia') have an entire article. It's very noteworthy. Why are you trying to make the section as hard to find as possible?- MrX 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Russia matter that is most noteworthy is purported Russian interference in the election, and of these two sections that is the section that most appropriately has "Russia" in the heading. Are you trying to make that section hard to find? Please try some more WP:AGF. As I said above, the section now titled "Other real estate activities" is very short and mainly deals with international stuff, so I think it should be merged with the "Ties to Russia" section (maybe call the merged section "Expansion worldwide"). It's true that there's a separate Wikipedia article about his business in Russia, but there are many Trump-related wikilinks already in this BLP without corresponding headers or subheaders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously they should both have Russia in the heading. In fact, why do we have "Foreign interference in election" and not "Russian interference in election"? That's just bizarre!- MrX 23:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that some editors would like to have Russia in all the headers. But the fact is that the Russia business ties are notable only because of the alleged interference in the election, and the Russia business ties were not any more notable than the Uruguay business ties until the election came along. Ths article attempts to be chronological, and chronologically the business ties to Russia were not notable until we get further along in the chronology than the real estate career. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The reason we have "Foreign interference" instead of "Russian interference" is because of this thread which discussed Ukrainian interference against Trump, e.g. by leaking data about payments to Paul Manafort. — JFG ^talk 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The Ukraine role far less noteworthy that the Russian interference. The section should not be constructed in such a was as to lead readers to assume they are of similar magnitude or importance.- MrX 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I'm not saying they have equal weight. I was just answering your question wondering where this title came from. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we need more editors commenting and editing here to stop this cabal editing that blocks all new ideas. I see no reason why Russia can't be mentioned twice in the TOC for two different topics. He has had business in Russia so let's put that in there with a proper heading, and there is apparently evidence to show Russian interference in the election, so lets put that in there, too. What's the issue with that? We aren't allowed to trim away the bulky 'side ventures' but mentioning Russia twice is twice too often? That makes no sense.SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's once too often, and tomorrow I intend to partially revert MrX's restructuring project, so that "Ties to Russia" remains a fourth-level subheader as it has been for months, until we get consensus on what to do. I don't want any fourth level subeaders in this article, but the third-level ones ought to be reasonable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to be so obstinate and threaten more aggressive editing. How about you convince us that your way is better? Why do think Trump's business dealings in Russia are so unimportant that you would demote it to lesser status than "Professional wrestling appearances"?- MrX 00:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: please take note of discussion. I agree with @MrX:, Anything. You're response here is inappropriate. You don't own this article and other editors are allowed to insert material into this article. Saying we cannot mention Russia twice makes no sense. There are two separate issues involving Russia. They should both be mentioned. It's all over RS. You can't blend the two and hide them under a header that doesn't reference them. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very funny User:MrX. You change longstanding content, and you object to me restoring a small part until we reach consensus, and yet I'm being aggressive and obstinate? Please. Just because something doesn't have a dedicated header doesn't mean it's unimportant. Trump built "Trump Tower", and he ran "The Trump Organization", both of which are very significant aspects of his life, and yet neither of those terms appear in headers or subheaders. I support having "Russia" in one of our subheaders, but think two is overkill, especially since the primary notability of Russia is in the context of the election. I've not suggested to remove any content, just to have Russia in one header instead of two. Incidentally, I have overhauled some stuff in the "Side ventures" section, but have not overhauled the wrestling part, and it may well be that that section can be shrunk and/or combined with another section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate issues with Russia Yes, we can mention both issues with headers. You should not revert MrX's edit. Let it stand. Let's get other editors here to comment. It' cannot be just you making decisions here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything, please see the note I have left on your talk page. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, User:Ad Orientem, and I responded to it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I've put up a survey to help settle this matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anythingyouwant, I think you are exhibiting some WP:OWN behavior here. You have made far more edits to long standing content recently that I have ever, and you rarely fail to ignore WP:BRD and even the 1RR restrictions to make sure that your edits persist. How about letting others have a turn at editing this article for a change?- MrX 01:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are in the minority regarding a content dispute, or have not put together a consensus, then I don't intend to just roll over and be intimidated. Get consensus and go from there, without any obstruction from me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If I were in the minority, that would be fine, but you're the only editor who has objected to my minor content reorganization and who has threatened to revert my edit as soon as the 1RR clock resets.- MrX 01:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)Yes, and there's the difference. It's just his opinion holding this up. The survey will need time to sort this. In the meantime, he should not be allowed to revert anything. @SusanLesch: please comment on the survey. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So Susan and JFG never supported a subsection titled "Worldwide expansion", and Susan never endorsed changing "Foreign Interference in the election" to "Russian interference in the election"? I just imagined all that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where SusanLesch specifically supported that. It seems to me it was you who suggested a title, then made the edit, then came back and said it was done and that Russia was mentioned, "but not twice." I'm not seeing where she said anything of the kind, unless I'm missing it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, "International expansion" sounds better, and the Russian bit can be merged there, as it talks only of his (failed) real estate projects in that country. His alleged collusion with Russia during the election campaign is covered elsewhere in the article. — JFG

  No, ties to Russia explains a long history of Trump's work in Russia. That is of interest to people who might inquire about collusion. As I recall, that section ended with a statement that says Trump has no business in Russia as of 2017. Kindly leave the word Russia in the TOC. -SusanLesch

  If you think "Russia" ought to explicitly be in the table of contents, let's change "Foreign interference in election" to "Russian interference in election". Anythingyouwant

  Sorry I am out of sync. Yes, I like your idea -- put Russian interference in election in if that is possible. -SusanLesch

  Okay, done. Russia remains in the TOC, but not twice. Anythingyouwant

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote during my absence, @Anythingyouwant: You represented my view fairly. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey about mentions of Russia

Can we mention Russia twice in the TOC? One subject is Trump's Ties to Russia, while the other subject is Russian interference in the election. Please indicate Support or Oppose. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. They are two separate issues that are notable in the RS and should have two sections with TOC headers. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, we absolutely should. This should not even be contentious. It's not even about the TOC, as much as it is about good article structure and clear headings that inform readers.MrX 01:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks for starting the survey, and I hope you don't mind that I've clarified your survey question. Having "Russia" twice in the Table of Contents is overkill, but having it once is fine. Trump's business ties with Russia were not notable until the alleged interference by Russia in the U.S. election. Since this BLP is supposed to be roughly chronological, the election subsection should have "Russia" in a header, while the stuff about business ties ought to go in a subsection "Worldwide expansion" that discusses his business ties with many different countries. That said, I fully support keeping all the content about his Russia business ties, just not as a subsection separate from his dealings with lots of other countries. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  P.S. Please see this utterly astounding edit if you would like more information about this survey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The noteworthy thing about Russia is their purported interference in the election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Trump's (failed) business deals in Russia are no more important than his (failed) business deals in Azerbaijan and Israel or his (successful) business deals in Canada and Panama. They have only been heavily scrutinized because of the election story. Therefore everything about Russia should be in a single section. — JFG ^talk 01:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. For now, both topics are important to evaluate the situation. I would not oppose if at some future date the Ties topic was folded into a real estate paragraph. But not for a year or more. A year is an arbitrary guess and does not mean in the forseeable future, therefore I support both in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also, "Ties to Russia" should be immediately renamed "Ties to Russians" or "Ties to Russian investors" per WP:BLPSOURCES. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Given the contents, I would suggest "Russian projects and investors". — JFG ^talk 08:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to Russia" is what the RS call it. Same with "Russian interference in the election." SW3 5DL (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What RS call "Ties to Russia" is a combination of everything linking Trump with Russia, including his remarks about Putin, the Russian influence propaganda, the DNC / Wikileaks hacks, the alleged collusion of Trump's campaign people or acquaintances with Russian officials, the Steele dossier, etc. However this section only talks about Trump's aborted projects in Russia and his Russian real estate clients, therefore it should be titled appropriately. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: There's no consensus for the change you made. Ties to Russia should remain. That is what RS calls it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I answered your point about "what RS call it" in my rationale above. The target article is also not called "Donald Trump ties to Russia" but "Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia". A move request to "Donald Trump affiliations with Russia" was unanimously opposed in February. Looks to me like what has no consensus is the conflating of Trump's Russian business dealings and the political angle of this affair. Each story has an appropriate section in the biography: "Russian projects and investors" under the real estate career section and "Foreign interference in the election" under the 2016 campaign section. — JFG ^talk 14:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: It is important to note that there is no consensus on what to do about this section. Your edit is premature. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe the edit that named this section "Ties to Russia"[2] was premature itself. In any case, the exact title is not what your survey asks, and I'm willing to have another debate about this, after the question is settled whether we should have two sections about Russia in the bio (my personal preference is still a single section but I'm not opposed to having two sections, as long as their subject matters are well defined, which is currently the case). — JFG ^talk 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes it should be two sections. One on his business and the other on the Russian interference that says, that. The survey does have the titles being proposed but as @MrX: noted in his comments, it's not well stated but close enough. It's just us, not an official RfC which would be nice to avoid. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment. I find it absolutely incredible that anyone would try to tweak the headings of a Wikipedia article in order to influence what appears in its table of contents. I find it equally incredible there is a thread on a talk page asking editors to support or oppose tweaking headings to influence the TOC. In all my years of editing Wikipedia, I have never encountered anything like this before. This startling level of POV-pushing nonsense is disheartening to the extreme. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It is POV to suppress it. It is due weight given the coverage in RS and the importance of the issues raised. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Never say never: remember this thread where some editors wanted to tweak the TOC in order to make the sexual misconduct allegations easier to find? — JFG ^talk 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I was not a contributor to this article until long after that (first edit). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is somewhat awkwardly worded, but I don't believe anyone is actually trying to influence the TOC per se. If you read the discussions that led up to it, and the subsequent discussions, it is about whether certain subtopics should be reduced to a subsection of subsection, or whether they should be same level as other related subtopics. It's also about accurately phrasing the headings so that they reflect the contents of the respective subsections. It's also about making sure we have at least one dedicated section in this article when there is an entire article devoted to the subject.- MrX 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well said. That is difficult to squeeze into one sentence, but that is exactly the issue. These subsections get hidden and do not appear in the TOC and should be brought up a peg. The other issue is the contention by Anythingyouwant that Russia must not be mentioned int he TOC twice. These are two separate issues involving Russia, both prominent issues, so an arbitrary command that we cannot have Russia mentioned twice seems POV pushing. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No. This is wrong on many levels. The TOC should never be used to push a POV one way or another, and by talking about "hidden subsections" that is exactly the case. The TOC is to make the page easier to navigate, not to give certain things prominence. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's really a question of due weight, and that should be the guide. These are still prominent issues and are as relevant, even more so, than other items in subsections that appear in the TOC. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's wrong to bury important topics so deep that no one can find them. Frankly, every section of the article should appear in the TOC. That's the only NPOV approach for such a controversial article. There have been some sneaky attempts to distance the subject of this article from Russia. That misrepresents the body of source material, a very large amount of which is about the Russia's (not Ukrainian) attempts to tip the scales so that Trump would win, as well as his substantial business activities in Russia.- MrX 15:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This version doesn't suppress anything. Russia appears in an appropriate header, and all the Russia-related sections appear in the TOC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

These are two separate topics and should be in two separate sections. Both have enough notability to have their own subsections. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The version I just mentioned has the attempted business connections with Russia and other countries in one subsection, and it has the attempted election interference by Russia and other countries in another later subsection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's only "Worldwide Expansion" which has both topics blended into one subsection the links offered in this edit here and this one here. I looked at both links and I do not see two sections unless my new glasses are failing me. That's not the same as each subject, the Russian interference and the Ties to Russia with the real estate investments, having their own subsection. On a topic like this that keeps coming up again and again, it needs to be opened to many more editors participating and that was not done before this edit was made. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The version I just referred to has a section titled "Russian and other interference in election". Are you now objecting to that? It also has a separate section titled "Worldwide expansion" that fully covers Trump's efforts in Russia and other countries. Regarding your comment about more editors, why make such a comment? Am I objecting to more editors? I completely reverted the version that you just linked, the minute you objected to it. Do I have to now keep apologizing for not removing it earlier? Why can't we simply discuss its merits? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the links you are referencing in your comments above, here and this one here. I am saying that there should be two subsections, one entitled 'Ties to Russia' and the other 'Russian interference in the election.' Those are the titles I believe should be in the article as they reflect wide notability in reliable sources and meet due weight. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this further with you until you stop changing your comments after I've already responded to them. Per WP:TPG, either remove the changes, or mark them as changed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

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.

---

Change "prior to" in the first paragraph to "before. "Prior to" is just stupid. NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus for the lead paragraph has already been established (item 17 of #Current consensus), and you'll to prompt more discussion before that changes. Also this is an encyclopedia article, and the standard of English reflects that. I don't see a huge problem here. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a controversial edit (edit requests are exactly for uncontroversial edits, so...). This is a simple improvement of wording, so I believe it should be done. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:14, 28 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.

'Prior to' or 'before'

According to Chicago ("Good Usage Vs. Common Usage"), "prior to entering" is common usage; "before entering" or "until entering" is good usage. ("Prior to. Make it before or until.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I support this change, per 69.165.196.103 and Dervorguilla. I don't agree with the original poster's premise that "prior to" is "stupid" though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I also support this change. If enough people agree, I would support changing it in consensus #17 and removing the disclaimer from the invisible comment in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: We're changing it to "Before entering politics. . .?" SW3 5DL (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I support it. It has already been changed in the article. What I am suggesting is that we let this discussion run for a few days, and if there is consensus (or at least no objection) we document it as the new consensus: by changing it in consensus #17, and by removing the invisible comment "(But 'before' may be reverted to 'prior to'.) " from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Reads better. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I can't find the section you quote in the Chicago Manual of Style. Can you cite an edition and page number? — JFG ^talk 20:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: 6th ed., ch. 5 ("Grammar and Usage"), under "Glossary of Problematic Words and Phrases," para. 5.220, "Good usage versus common usage", p. 294. See also Garner's American Usage, 3rd ed.: "The adjectives prior and previous for earlier are each within the stylist's license; prior to and previous to in place of before are not." --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — JFG ^talk 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR question

(Background: This discussion started on my talk page and was moved here at my request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

With the 1RR on DT, does that mean that if you revise content, and that gets reverted, and you then come back and revise the same content again less than 24 hours later, is that a 1RR violation? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think merely revising content is necessarily a revert if it hasn't been the subject of any recent discussion or editing. I can get some links on that if you would like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually here looking for Ad Orientem's opinion. Revision is often the same as a revert. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR means that you don't reinsert material or edits that have been challenged by reversion. If the edit in question is substantially the same as one that was reverted then you are violating 1RR. I would also point out that people should be seeking talk page consensus before making major changes to the article. Discretionary Sanctions is not limited to 1RR. The bottom line is that we need to show respect for other editors and the broader community when editing articles about controversial figures. If someone is habitually not doing that then they can be sanctioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

{e/c] I'm not all that familiar with the sanctioning on ArbCom pages. but these edits seem to me to be violating 1RR imposed on DT, and there are more like them.

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit at 02:38 was not a revert that anyone should be blocked for, if indeed it was technically a revert, because that material had not recently been the subject of any discussion or editing, so there was not remotely anything like a revert-war going on (also note that the edit of 02:38 basically added info rather than removing any info). Moreover, FYI, there was a lot of discussion here about what constitutes a revert, and the purported difference between a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". As far as editing the Trump article recently, I've been bold and substantially upgraded the article recently. I would like to keep going to make it ready to be a "good article". If there is consensus that I have not been doing this properly, then I'll go away from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a conversation that needs to be held on the article talk page. IMO this discussion should be moved there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Will you be commenting on the article talk page? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly if I have time. I'm in the middle of some stuff right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

.Has he violated the 1RR? It appears to me he has, and he has done this many times before. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If the edit at 02:38 was a revert subject to 1RR then so was this. Right SW3? Anyway, please move this discussion per request above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This section was originally posted on Ad Orientem's talk page. Ad Orientem wanted it moved here.

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, do you think this edit of mine might have been a revert? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you violated 1RR here:

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I know, you already said all of that above. It's not what I'm asking you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since my opinion has been requested, I think that calling the linked edits a 1RR violation is a stretch. I am INVOLVED by virtue of having recently edited this article, and thus am merely offering my opinion as an experienced editor. That said this looks like well intentioned, albeit perhaps overly assertive editing. If I were acting as an admin I would certainly not issue a block on the basis of what I've seen here. But I do think that everybody needs to remember that the subject of this article is controversial. There have been talk page arguments over the most trivial edits. Everybody needs to remember that there are a lot of cooks in this kitchen and editing should be approached with that in mind. Yes, there is WP:BOLD, but there is also WP:CONSENSUS. The latter always trumps (pun intended) the former. I am not seeing any malicious editing here. But an argument could be made that there has been insufficient consideration given to the opinions of other editors. We should all try to remember that we are on the same team here and edit accordingly. So let's try to assume good faith, and show a reasonable level of respect for the other members of the team and their view of what should go into the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. And I agree that there is insufficient consideration given to the opinions of others, especially when edits are constantly reverted and/or challenged. And I still think it's a violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly free to disagree with me. I'm just one person, but you asked for my opinion and I've given it. 1RR does not mean an editor has to ask permission before making any edits. And yes, we all need to show some consideration for the other editors working on the article. And that works two ways. Routinely reverting someone's edits can be seen as less than constructive unless there are good reasons. But if you want to pursue this ANEW is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that 1RR means we have to ask permission before making any edits. About routinely reverting someone's edits, I can show you diffs of almost every edit I've made has been reverted by Anythingyouwant or changed, or moved. He dogs my edits. I worked on several sections when we were reducing the size of the article, and he came back and changed every edit I made. But when anybody reverts or changes his edits, he has a fit on the talk page. His comments get hostile, very aggressive. When I switched around the ancestry and family sections, I removed 'ancestry' since it seem silly to separate it from his family. Anythingyouwant had a meltdown on the talk page about it. Very aggressive, hostile comments. JFG rolled back all of my edits for that night without any regard to separating out what they were objecting to. Just all of them. They were later restored, but this is the kind of thing that shows lack of regard for other editors, and WP:OWN, which needs to be addressed. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The best I can do is strongly encourage everybody to step back, take a deep breath and try to conduct ourselves in a collegial manner. It doesn't help when we don't assume good faith and or fail to show respect for everybody else who is working on this article. And that applies to all of us. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But we need an admin to start moderating this talk page and article so this ownership issue and the constant disruption can be resolved. Nobody else is doing the things to this page that he does. Nobody else is subverting a gathering consensus with go no where RfC's. Right now he's threatening to partially revert MrX's edit. Who is he to decide that? The last I checked he's just one ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are being very unfair, SW3. Both JFG and Susan expressed support above for combining "Ties to Russia" with "Other real estate activities", and prior to MrX's edits the former material was a subsection under the latter. I welcome Ad Orientem's opinion about this if he feels like giving it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you stop taking the 'initiative' to instantly change things when you've got only two people agreeing with you? Why do things have to be decided on the spot? Let the issues sit for a bit. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia unless it's a BLP violation that demands immediate attention. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are being extremely unfair. I am seeking to return to the status quo of not having "Russia" appear in the table of contents until we get consensus about it. You say "Right now he's threatening to partially revert MrX's edit." Well, was MrX seeking to maintain the status quo or change it? You're making it seem like I'm the one who is trying to charge ahead with changes based on support from two other editors. Not so, not so at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not unfair, it's dead on accurate. Why do you believe you must be the one to restore anything? So what if one of the holes isn't filled in with a peg? It will get sorted. Like I said, there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy it SW3. Saying that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia is a proper argument for maintaining the status quo until a consensus is worked out, not for changing the article in a way that is hotly contested. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Right now you're the only one 'hotly contesting' it. You hotly contest everything that isn't your idea. Give it a rest. MrX is right. He's not the only one who wants to see this. These subjects belong on this article. There is more than sufficient RS to support good edits. WP:LISTEN. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Let your survey proceed and then we'll see whether there is consensus for your proposal. And don't blame me if you fail to get consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am signing off shortly as I need to get up early but the talk page survey is the right way to proceed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement regarding behavior

• I've been away for 24 hours and haven't been following the latest disagreements, and in any case I have no interest in parsing and passing judgment on the constant bickering between SW3 and Anything. Here is what I see: Anything aggressively editing without waiting for consensus, and SW3 inflating what ought to be minor content disagreements into what they apparently hope will be the ultimate case to get the other person sanctioned. The two of you have made this article, and this page, into a battleground - too complicated to follow, too unpleasant for anyone to try to weigh in the on the actual content. My hunch is that if either of you bring this bickering before the community at large (i.e. ANI), you could both wind up being sanctioned. Please try to calm down with your wars and accusations, and just work together, patiently and collegially, like all the rest of us seem to manage to do. When you have a disagreement, come to the talk page and post a clear explanation of what is being discussed, without accusations or demands, so that the community as a whole can discuss the content. Discussing content is what this page is for.
  NOTE: In this comment I am speaking as an ordinary, involved editor at this page. I am not in any way speaking as an admin or threatening anyone. I'm just trying to let you know how this ongoing, months-long series of accusations and counter-accusations looks to the community at large. Please do not reply by trying to prove that the OTHER person is at fault. Please just calm down and quit trying to make every editing disagreement between the two of you into World War III. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have no problem with that. Thank you both. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• SW3 has brought the matter to ANI where it is currently pending. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• ☝ What MelanieN said. ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have voluntarily pledged to stop editing this BLP, though I may comment here at the talk page from time to time.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2017

Please let me edit this page. Change X to Y. 67.165.218.118 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC) No. Please specify what changes you wish to make. X to Y is not really specific.Crboyer (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed correction to heading levels

I would like to increase the heading level of three sections that seem to be buried by "TOC limit|3". Business bankruptcies, Ties to Russia, and Personal taxes are the only fourth level headings in the entire biography (until we reach his political efforts where I agree that fourth level and below might be useful). Because editing this article is so contentious I will wait until at least tomorrow to see if there are any objections. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's what it would look like with a longer TOC. Looks unwieldy to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The alternative is to get rid of the TOC limit, which is a good idea. It isn't the TOC that's unwieldy, it is Wikipedia editors who have pack-ratted every detail of this man's life into a few dozen articles. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that happens with presidential nominees and presidents. There are tons of Hillary articles, McCain articles, etc. I've been trying lately to overhaul this article, but there's a long way to go, and maybe when the overhaul is done the structure will look better to you. I've started at the top and am working my way down. If a fourth-level subheader is at the top of a very short subsubsubsection, maybe the subheader ought to be removed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We should place sections and subsections as logically as possible. The current TOC limit at level 3 is appropriate given the length of the article and the number of sections; this shouldn't be changed because we want to emphasize a particular "buried" subsection. if a level-4 subsection deserves a more prominent placement as a level-3 section, this case can be made independently of where the TOC limit stands. Note that on the Wikipedia mobile apps, the TOC limit does not apply: every TOC item is reachable from the article menu. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I support SusanLesch' proposal to eliminate the TOC limit. I don't find it unwieldy at all. Also, "Ties to Russia" should not be a subsection of "Hotels beyond New York".- MrX 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  I changed that last header to "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with MrX about the Ties to Russia should not be a subsection. The problem with the TOC's is that there is too much in this article that is not relevant here and should be moved to the subarticles. Too much is being "rat-packed' into the article. A lot of it is verbose additions that add nothing but length to the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to removing the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, my phone does not display every item in a TOC. Can you please provide a source for that idea? On Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where I removed the TOC limit, my phone only displays level two headings (the title being level one). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Are you using a phone browser such as Safari or Chrome, or the Wikipedia app? I was talking about the latter. — JFG ^talk 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: you're right I didn't have the app yet. Now using the app (that 10 million people downloaded) I don't get any TOC at all. That's in both this article with a TOC limit and in the other one without a limit. So can you please point me to some documentation to support your view that TOCs must be limited to serve mobile users? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Not quite: I was saying that the TOC level setting is irrelevant for the mobile app. You can display the TOC by tapping the "Contents" button (bottom-left of the screen when reading an article) and it always displays the full TOC. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Oh, sorry for speeding through your reply, I assumed you brought up mobile access because of its relation to a TOC limit. Actually, though, I see no difference between the app's TOC in this article and in the other article (one has a TOC limit and one doesn't). For example, in this one, under presidency->Transition there is no White House appointments etc. (as expected because the TOC limit is 3). In Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where there is no TOC limit, I would expect to see sections 5.4.1, 7.7.1, and 7.7.2 represented in the app's TOC but I don't. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: sorry if I am dense but it would help if you finished what was started here. In the Wikipedia app I do not see evidence that the TOC limit is irrelevant. Neither article displays the full TOC (Wikipedia for Android 2.5.195-r-2017-04-21). In this article there is a cut off and a TOC limit, and in the Russian interference article there is a cut off but no stated TOC limit. I guess that a limit is hard coded into the app? Where is the documentation? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: I double-checked: it turns out that the Wikipedia app on iOS shows all TOC levels (ignoring any limit), whereas the Android app shows only level 3, probably hardcoded. No idea if or where these UX choices are documented. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Apple is worth the money, if you get more with iOS. You did a great job on the article and have moved all the sections that were of concern to me to higher levels so they show up. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Susan, how about if I remove the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York"? Then the only fourth-level subheader will be in the presidency section, and you or I could then trim that section while getting rid of the fourth-level subheaders there too. Sounds good? Then we remove the TOC limit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant. Three fourth level headers are bothering me. Because there is no way to find this information: Business bankruptcies, Ties to Russia, and Personal taxes. (Just by the way, removing the TOC limit was not my idea.) All it would take is removing an equal sign on each side of three lines and we'd be done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I already took care of two of those three, in a different way. Okay? Regarding the last one, I would prefer to do the same sort of thing, i.e. remove the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've promoted the 'Ties to Russia' section to level 3. A section that discusses a subject notable enough for its own article should not be at level 4. I've combined the New York real estate sections into one section. (No more "Further buildings"). The loose change can go in the section 'Other real estate activities'.- MrX 21:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, I like this version of the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and SusanLesch: I oppose this edit [4]. It reverts the edit MrX made which has support here. There does not appear to be enough discussion here, or in the other thread, to turn this into Russian interference in the election. These seem to be two separate issues. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See the pertinent talk page section below, where I and other editors are against having "Russia ties" as a standalone section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Personally, I feel that the "Foreign Policy" section needs to be corrected. While it mentions Trump's positions on certain issues, it also has references to his appointees- whose statements are theirs only.

Trump has considered recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia in the past;[603][604] however, in the aftermath of Michael T. Flynn's resignation as National Security Adviser, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that Trump expects Russia to "return" Crimea to Ukraine,[605] emphatically stating that "Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine."[606] He added that Trump's appointed ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, "strongly denounced the Russian occupation" of Crimea.[606] Trump has pledged to hold a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin.[607] He added that Russia could help the U.S. in fighting ISIS militants.[608] On April 7, 2017, Trump ordered the Shayrat missile strike in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack in Syria.[609]

I take issue with the addition of Sean Spicer's position on Nikki Haley's position - it's too ambiguous.

Thanks.

Thenigma (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer is the White House press secretary. For good or for ill, his word is the word of the President of the United Staes when he is "on the clock" so to speak. TheValeyard (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is too much detail and it obscures the facts that the article should convey. Trump spoke during the campaign about improving U.S.-Russia relations, possibly recognizing their annexation of Crimea, but since the election has continued the policies of the Obama administration. His opponents probably read too much into his initial remarks, which were similar to what Clinton herself had said 8 years earlier. TFD (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. This is a biography. We can make general, broad-stroke statements here about his foreign policy; detail belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Our current section goes into way too much detail about Crimea. I personally would delete it all except for a general statement about his desire to improve relations with Russia and to meet with Putin. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes to trimming this issue out of the BLP. And we also have separated articles now for Trump's foreign policy positions as a candidate and the foreign policy of the Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 09:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would hesitate to trust anything Haley says on the president's behalf. Before the election she was known for openly hating on him. She would not pass muster as a "based" Trump supporter. ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, too much detail. As MelanieN said, we should keep this article to broad strokes. I would like to see several sections trimmed as they have their own articles and too much has been left behind here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to trim the paragraph per discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pic of family

I uploaded this picture to Commons today, maybe it would be better than Hollywood Squares in the "family" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Melania Trump

Donald Trump, Jr.

Ivanka Trump

Eric Trump

Tiffany Trump

Barron Trump

A worthy addition to the encyclopedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The photos there now are informative for the reader. This one is not. No need to fixate on this. The photos there now are fine. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This inaugural photo has historic value, plus it shows all the children, just as the collection of separate photos does in the BLP now (see below the inaugural photo). It is also more relevant to show a "family" together as a family in the "family" section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The photo array identifies his family members and that has encyclopedic value. It does not need to be historical. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the inaugural photo also identify the family members? Why you think the inaugural photo is not informative eludes me. I agree that photos for this BLP don't have to be historic, but historic photos do add to encyclopedic value when they're available, as in this case. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The photo array needs to get promptly removed for unfairness to one of the subjects, per WP:BLP#Balance. The six images are grossly unbalanced: photo 1 is twice the size of photo 2. Photos 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 show their subjects formally dressed; photo 2 shows its subject tieless, backdropped by a big "E" and a little "IN". Does this subliminally suggest he's "in" ... or "out"? Too confusing. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It was only inserted a few days ago, on April 30.[5] Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed. The inaugural photo looks like it's balanced and fair to the subjects. Could you go ahead and add it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, not me, I've pledged to not edit this article for the time being, to avoid any appearance of making this a battleground. But I support adding it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree w/ Anythingyouwant and Dervorguilla that the inaugural photo is better for purposes of an encyclopedia than either the former "Hollywood Squares" collection, or the current one (which is too dim and obscured w/o being enlarged beyond what is appropriate for the article). I will be replacing the current w/ the inaugural, now. --IHTS (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaugural picture has all his children in the same context, that's good. This particular image is blurred, however; can we find a snap of the same scene with better quality? — JFG ^talk 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that they are in a crowd of people and you can't even see Donald Jr. clearly. The photo is too small, but even if we enlarge it, it would still be confusing. We need another photo of the whole family with just them and no others in the background. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Before entering politics...

I just read this article for the first time and the second sentence jarred me. This sentence has said for more than 400 edits "Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." However, in the second paragraph it says "...he hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015" and in the third "Trump first publicly expressed interest in running for political office in 1987."

These sentences are inconsistent. He entered politics in 1987 (or at least by 2000) but he didn't become a TV personality until 2004. Trump ran his businesses both before and during the campaign. The way the second sentence is phrased, a reader might think that there was a fairly abrupt shift between Trump as the businessman and television personality and Trump as a candidate for president.

Wouldn't it be better if we said something like "Before winning the presidency he was a businessman and television personality" or "Before running for president in 2015 he was a businessman and television personality"? Or even "He ran a real-estate business for 45 years and hosted a television program from 2004 to 2015 before winning the presidency in 2016"? Or something else?

This, of course, will require whole bunch of consensus. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made this point many, many times. I offered an alternative that worked just fine, but editors made up tons of lame excuses to hide the fact they wanted to exclude "politician" from the lede:

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.

Anyway, I doubt you will be able to get any movement from the barbarian horde. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:RoyGoldsmith, there was a recent survey at this talk page about this matter, here (scroll to "Survey about"). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: "Television personality" means "television celebrity" (not "television producer"). He was both a celebrity and on television before 2000. The sentence is, as you point out, confusing, but it's not actual fake news. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and others: Thanks for the recent survey. I see what you mean. I swore when I got through with Tea Party movement that I would never get into another ultra-contentious article again. Serves me right.

Could you describe objectively how we settled on the current consensus? Was it just because, considering all of the modifications we could make, that second sentence (or something like it) was short and expresses the main points of what we wanted to get across, even though it's not technically correct? Or something far more complex? I don't want to start a new argument but I do want to know. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: As an "old hand" on this page, I can summarize how the situation evolved. The exact wording of the lead sentence has attracted much debate all along the campaign season and even more after the election. For a few months, people argued on the list of roles that Trump has played in his life: should we call him a businessman or a real estate developer? a reality TV star or a TV producer? an actor? a politician? a pussy grabber? (just kidding here but not too far from the truth given some suggestions) Consensus was finally reached with a list including "politician", "businessman", "television personality" and "president". Then people starting arguing about order: was he a politician before the 2016 campaign? should he be called president first or last? must we say he is the current president? Finally the ever-contested variants were replaced by two sentences: one saying he is the current president, the other one listing his prior roles in chronological order, with most editors approving, to our collective relief. Sure, it's an over-simplification, but trying to be more precise in the intro paragraph has proven contentious and counter-productive. Hope this helps! — JFG ^talk 18:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Should we replace his signature? I find the one currently listed on site is noticably different than how he usually signs. Most notably the distance between letters and height being off. I found on the Federal Register website a better version. What do you think? 173.239.240.172 (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This question has been debated and settled before. The current signature file is a good-quality scan of a rather legible example. No two signature instances are exactly the same and Trump didn't change his signing style significantly since becoming president. For these reasons, I see no need to look for a new one. — JFG ^talk 06:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but the arguments you linked me seemed like superficial ("I don't like his signature", "it seems too bold/in your face") versus it as a matter of incidence. It didn't seem as much as a matter of consensus as it was vote-counting, and so I'd be glad to raise the issue once more and stand by my decision. Also, seeing as you opposed it before, that gives me more incentive to have the issue heard. 173.239.240.172 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. His signature is different now. I think the one on the federal register is not more representative of what he's doing now. I think we should change it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm rethinking that because it might be that his signature looks different when he uses a felt tip pen, but this photo of a very recent signature seems to look like what we have in the infobox now. [6], so I don't see a need to change it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. To me, it looks like a rather easy call. The FR signature is official; the current one isn't. Also, we could simultaneously adjust the image height. The current sig image takes up nearly 3½ linespaces; we could reduce it to, say, 3. (A technical note: The sig image at FA Hillary Clinton has been cropped and aligned so that the top of the signature rises nearly ¼ linespace above the top of the Signature label text.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2017

In the section Foreign interference in election, I note one misuse of the reference article and one misleading omission regarding a second reference.

1. In the first part of the last sentence, the page says '...sources state with "high confidence" that...' (quotes in the original) The cited reference does not use the term "high confidence". Rather it uses the word 'confidence". Use of "high confidence" in quotes is in error. The quote needs to be changed to ' with confidence...'

2. In the last part of the same sentence, the page states "members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election." The reference cited to support this statement also says that law enforcement and intelligence official have found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. If one is to cite the reference, I think the above statement is important to the context of this section in the page. To omit it, after discussing contact, misleads the reader. The statement, as suggested above should be added as the last sentence to this section. 2601:151:4403:5440:712E:CBCD:353C:DA7E (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

1. I fixed this issue by adding a citation.
2. Please seek consensus first for this edit.- MrX 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, MrX. Re #2, no change in our wording is needed. There is ample evidence of contact between members of Trump's campaign and Russian officials. At this time there is no firm evidence of collusion on the public record, but there are ongoing investigations into the possibility. It would be premature and misleading to say that "no evidence of collusion" has been found, when that report was "as of January" and investigation is ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Couching contentious material in quotes

In perusing the article today I noticed that there are a lot of direct quotes from Donald Trump himself. While some in-line quotes are to be expected, we should not be using quotes as vehicles to insert contentious material that is not verifiable in secondary sources, or to put a positive or negative spin on events.

A couple relevant Wikipedia guidelines are:

• WP:Quotation: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject."
• MOS:QUOTE: "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement. Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)."

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about, along with suggested replacements.

Topic	What the article currently says (quote)	Suggested replacement	Notes
Involuntarily enrolled in a military boarding school	At age 13, Trump's parents enrolled him in the New York Military Academy, after discovering Donald made frequent trips into Manhattan without permission. "I was a wise guy, and they wanted to get me in line," Trump said. "Thinking back, it was a very positive influence."	At age 13, Trump's parents enrolled him in the New York Military Academy, after discovering Donald made frequent trips into Manhattan without permission.	Could also be paraphrased to, "Trump later said he thought it was a positive influence."
Loan of $1M	Trump has said that he began his career with "a small loan of one million dollars" from his father (which "isn't very much compared to what I've built"), and paid back that loan with interest.	Trump has said that he began his business career with a loan of $1 million dollars from his father.	If the $1M figure is also supported in reliable sources, we can put it in Wikipedia's voice.
Renovation of the Plaza Hotel	The hotel was built in 1907, and Trump called it "the ultimate work of art", spending $50 million on its restoration.	The hotel, built in 1907, cost $50 million to restore.	Also makes it less confusing, since Trump certainly didn't build the hotel in 1907
On his business bankruptcies	The six bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York: [...]. Trump said, "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."	The six bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York: [...].	No need for the "fantastic deal" spin, and there are better descriptions of how bankruptcy works.
The Hollywood Access tape controversy	On the tape, Trump is heard bragging to the show's then-cohost Billy Bush about forcibly kissing and groping women. "I just start kissing them," he says, "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy."	On the tape, Trump is heard bragging in vulgar terms about forcibly kissing and groping women.	It's enough to say that it's vulgar without giving the whole quote. (Billy Bush would be moved into the preceding sentence.)

I would like to implement these and possibly other similar changes int the article, but wanted to get some feedback first to avoid any edit skirmishes. (But please let's not turn this into another RfC!) ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. btw,"involuntarily enrolled in a military boarding school," I love that. Can we put that in the article? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley:, MelanieN and BullRangifer make good points about the last two. Also, now I'm thinking about it, I think the first quote should stay as is. Trump is revealing he knew he was a handful. We should keep his quote on going to military school. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Has any child ever voluntarily enrolled in a military boarding school? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

XD, I only know Donald Trump didn't. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Also to me. (In most cases, the direct quotation could be included as a ref quote.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am OK with the first three changes, but I think the Trump quotes should be retained in the last two. His attitude toward bankruptcy is entirely relevant. And what he said on the tape has been widely reported and belongs here so that people can understand what the issue was all about. Censoring it to merely "vulgar" does a disservice to our readers IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Melanie on this one. the last two quotes are necessary. They give us a good description of his thinking, and readers deserve to get that. Otherwise those are good edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, the only quote that I put in was "The hotel was built in 1907, and Trump called it 'the ultimate work of art', spending $50 million on its restoration." The point was that he invested so much money in restoration largely because he viewed it as the ultimate work of art. You can check the cited sources (footnotes 128 and 129) about that, so I support keeping the quote or modifying the paraphrase. I was not aware this was contentious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: I agree with your approach. Trump has a notoriously rambling speaking style, which translates poorly in direct quotes, so that paraphrasing is generally more encyclopedic. However I think we should keep certain small nuggets of Trump speech that have defined issues or raised controversy, e.g. among your examples "a small loan of one million dollars" and "grab them by the pussy". — JFG ^talk 10:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN and BullRangifer. The first three are improvements. The quotes in the last two should be retained because they provide essential context.- MrX 10:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• It might be a better idea to leave the quotes for now. Trump is such a unique character that keeping his words in the article help define him better for the reader. Looking over the article, I don't see where any of these quotes are undue, and from the response you're getting, it seems each one of these quotes have something the editors here feel are important. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• "A small loan of one million dollars" is a famous quote! We can't get rid of that! Comparisons were drawn at the time with "corporations are people, my friend." -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't mind keeping "small loan" if we also keep his explanation that he meant "small" in relation to what he's built. Otherwise, we should just use the paraphrase that AWilley suggested in the table ("Trump has said that he began his business career with a loan of $1 million dollars from his father"). Selectively quoting the BLP subject out of context is a lot worse than providing the full quote, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• OK, lots of people have responded listing different quotes they would like to see kept or removed, all citing legitimate reasons to keep/remove individual quotes. But nobody has commented on the underlying principle or the guidelines I quoted above. Any thoughts on that? ~Awilley (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In line with the quoting policy and style guide, we should keep the essence of the quote (words that "stick" in popular consciousness) and paraphrase or remove all the rambling. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• It really depends on the edit and how the quote supports it. Also, it might be that on a contentious article like this, letting Trump speak is far better than having an editor trying to figure out how to say Trump was sent off to military school because he was a 'wise guy.' And really, how else do you say in Wikipedia's voice, "grab them by the pussy?" He's Donald Trump. His words are better than ours in many situations. I don't see any copyright violations. You could run it by Moonriddengirl. She's the expert copy right on Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not concerned about copyright violations. ~Awilley (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• • AWilley, if you believe there might be copyright infringement, or that a particular quote inserts a non-neutral treatment, or that there are too many quotes in a particular section, then that would be the best time to invoke those guidelines. I'm not sure you believe that's the situation with all these quotes in the table. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Copyright infringement?? I think you misunderstood my concern, as copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with it. ~Awilley (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Huh? Copyright infringement was explicitly mentioned in the guidelines you quoted, along with non-neutral treatment, and too many quotes. Maybe that's why (independently from me) SW3 wrote "I don't see any copyright violations." Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Then let me clarify (also for SW3): My concern, as stated above, is that "we should not be using quotes as vehicles to insert contentious material that is not verifiable in secondary sources, or to put a positive or negative spin on events." I quoted snippets of relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and one of those snippets happened to mention potential copyright violations as one reason to avoid excessive quotes. I'm not concerned about copyright violations. ~Awilley (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see how the brief quote "the ultimate work of art" puts a spin on anything or is contentious. He was referring to what someone else did in 1907, and explaining why he wanted to spend so much to restore it. As mentioned above, I don't think your paraphrase conveys that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  You don't think the words "the ultimate work of art", applied to a building by the developer who owns it, might be just a little bit hyperbolic? ~Awilley (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  Buildings can be artistic, especially their interiors. He's explaining why he bought it, and why he plowed into it tens of millions of dollars more than planned to restore the artwork instead of gutting it. If you want to paraphrase, I've said from the beginning that that's fine (though unnecessary), but try this: "The hotel was built in 1907, and Trump spent twice the planned amount on its restoration, $50 million altogether, in order to bring back what he said was a great work of art." I also am the one who put into this article that he smashed the Bonwit Teller artwork, so NPOV is a factor here too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  You've edited the sentence to say that Trump called the Plaza hotel his "Mona Lisa" thus conveying the notion that Trump took credit for its artistic value and compared himself to Leonardo da Vinci. Actually, he said "I have purchased a masterpiece---the Mona Lisa".[7]. So I disagree with your edit, but thanks for discussing it with me. I have no desire to make this article a battleground, so you can correct the misimpression or leave it the way it is, as you wish. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  I have tweaked the prose of the Plaza paragraph, now quoting Trump calling the building "the Mona Lisa", not "his". — JFG ^talk 10:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks JFG ~Awilley (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. Based on this feedback I am inclined to approach the quotes on a case-by-case basis, leaving some alone, trimming some, paraphrasing some, and moving some to the footnotes, trying to take into account the preferences expressed here. If people have problems with specific edits then they can either fix the problems themselves or we can practice up on WP:BRD. ~Awilley (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Re item 5: Here's how the original source (Farenthold) put it-

Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing [and] groping ... women... “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait... And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Here's how our article puts it-

Trump [bragged] ... about forcibly kissing and groping women...

A lawyer might dispute our claim. As you can see from the transcript, Trump did not in fact "brag" in vulgar terms about "his" (asserted) groping of beautiful women. He said beautiful women characteristically "let" a "star" kiss or grope them. He then restated his claim, saying -- twice -- "[a star] can" do this.

A lawyer might also say that when Trump claimed that beautiful women characteristically "let" a star grope them, he may well have meant that they appear to consent to it.

Trump may be wholly wrong here. That's for the star's criminal-trial judge to decide, though, not us. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, BullRangifer, and MrX that the last two quotes (about bankruptcy and grabbing women) ought to remain. The proposed paraphrases do not (and maybe cannot) fully capture the essence. Having a paraphrase in addition to the full quote is unnecessary, so I support editing like this: "On the tape, Trump is heard bragging to the show's then-cohost Billy Bush about forcibly kissing and groping women.[415][416][417] 'I just start kissing them....'" One could argue that the Trump quote about bankruptcies is self-serving, but I put into the following paragraph that the Washington Post calls his casino bankruptcies the "most infamous flop" of his business career, so there's no problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think removing direct quotes and paraphrasing instead would be a great improvement. Easier to read and clear, factual reporting rather than ambiguous quotes. One editor says, "I think the first quote should stay as is. Trump is revealing he knew he was a handful." That's actually a violation of WP:Quotation: "a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment." If that was what Trump clearly meant, then we paraphrase him. If not, then we need a reliable secondary source to provide that conclusion. Otherwise, it is POV-pushing.

Regarding the Billy Bush conversation, I think we should explain what he said and provide the full quote, since it is significant. But we are leaving the quote to explain itself.

TFD (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The quote from Trump about being a wise guy came from the same article. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all. His parents discovered he was taking the subway into Manhattan at the age of thirteen, among other things, and they sent him off to a Military Academy. Trump explained that he was sent off because 'I was a wise guy." I don't see how that's a non-neutral treatment. Perhaps you don't like my reasoning for keeping it but that does not justify your comment which seems to be a back door to a personal attack. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to say your suggestion is contrary to policy, otherwise we could have no conversations at all. If as you say a direct quote is a neutral treatment, why do you object to paraphrasing it? I think your first comment was correct, you think that it conveys something paraphrasing does not. TFD (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read all my comments here, you will see that I felt Trump says things better than we can paraphrase, which can often result in an awkwardly written sentence. In other words, in some cases, he says things better than we can paraphrase or attempt to explain further. The real question though, is why is this such a big deal for you? Awilley has already deleted it and I'm fine with that. Move on SW3 5DL (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@SW3, I don't see that TFD is making a "big deal" out of anything, but can't say the same about you. And telling them to "Move on" sounds unnecessarily combative. Perhaps you meant it differently in your mind, like "let's move on to something else", but in text it sounds like you're telling them their opinion isn't welcome here and to go away. ~Awilley (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you should re-read my comment again with a more neutral pov. I have stricken the comment because you have misinterpreted it. Let's move on to something else. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Regarding your opposition to paraphrasing the quotation in Topic 1, I think you're right. That said, I also think you should be forthwith enrolled in Wikipedia Military Academy for being a "wise guy". It may get you in line! :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: XD on your second point. Nobody says things like Donald Trump says things that's why it's so hard to paraphrase him. on your first point.SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary page break

@Awilley: Re topics 2 and 4, I support your careful suggested rewording. Re topic 5, I oppose both the current and suggested language. To me, it looks like this contentious passage

Trump is heard bragging ... about ... groping women.

fails WP:BLPSTYLE. "The material [is to be] presented conservatively... Beware of biased content... Biographies must be fair to their subjects."

And we do know what Trump said here. He said that beautiful women characteristically “let” “a star” kiss them. Clarifying, he then said -- twice -- that a star “can” kiss (or grope) them.

A fair reading: Trump is saying that any star can do so. He's making no claims to superiority over any other star in this regard. So he's not “bragging” about anything. (Nor is he saying anything about “women” as a class; his literal claim, as worded, is more nuanced than some of us may think.)

Can we use WaPo's apparently unfair characterization of Trump's claim? Based on Pew Research survey data, WaPo's content may reasonably be treated as more biased than BBC's or WSJ's. And per (1) WP:V and (2) WP:BLPSTYLE, we can use biased content about the subject (1) if and (2) only if he gets shot or whatever. Not yet, though.

Why not? Because a fair rewording could have a potential positive impact on the subject's life. (Wikipedia's language, not mine; but I have to believe it's possible.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The use of "positive impact" does not actually appear to be Wikipedia's language, only that (obviously) BLPs have an impact on a subject's life. More importantly, in the section you helpfully linked, is Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. The reliable secondary coverage of Trump's quote here is overwhelmingly clear about how they describe his comments, and the carriage follows the horse. Parabolist (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:QUOTE, "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Since we're including the excerpt, there's no need to explain that "Trump was heard bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women". That would also make Dervorguilla's point moot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant is right. Using Trump's quote is good enough. Attempts to paraphrase it tend to either interpret it (making it worse or better), or whitewash it (making it better). Both are serious violations of NPOV.

Keep in mind that NPOV refers primarily to how editors present material, not to the content itself. Content may be biased, both positively and negatively. Editors must remain neutral and not tamper with the bias found in RS. They must present what they find in those sources and preserve the bias. They must remain "neutral" and not alter the intent of the source. For an in depth examination of this topic, see my essay "NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Two points: 1. I didn't change any of the paraphrasing in my edit. I simply reordered it in the paragraph and changed the tense of a verb. 2. We are't the ones who get to interpret Trump's words. We rely on secondary sources to do that. I did a quick check of the source used at the end of the paraphrase sentence and it fully supports the paraphrase. (The wording in the source is, "...newly unearthed audio recordings showed Trump bragging about forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals.") I don't know if this source (NBCNews) is representative of the other sources that certainly covered this, but looking to the sources is going to be a more productive approach than trying to interpret Trump's words ourselves. ~Awilley (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting to interpret Trump's words ourselves? Why not just provide the quote and remove all paraphrasing? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: That's exactly what I've been saying. And I agree with @BullRangifer:. As I said to @The Four Deuces: above, Trump says it better than we can paraphrase it. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I think I understand what you mean and, if so, I agree that Trump was speaking more in generalities than specifically about anything he did personally. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Your edit summary here where you say "wise guy' is 'anachronistic' is evidence of your pov. That's how Donald J. Trump, boy from Queens, New York says things, and it's how many New Yorkers say thing. It's a reference to the Mafia lieutenants. They are/were called "wise guys." You can put the boy in downtown Manhattan, but you can't take the Queens out of the boy. Let Trump be Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That you think it was the Trump the boy who said "I was a wise guy" illustrates my point. Trump was sent to boarding school when he was 13 (so 1959 or 1960-ish). But he made the "wise guy" remarks 56 years later (in 2016) in an interview with the Washington Post. The way it was worded in our article made it sound like it was Trump the boy talking, which is why I said it was somewhat anachronistic. ~Awilley (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: lol, No, that's not at all what I thought. I knew he said it in 2016. Saying "You can take the boy out of. . ." is just a common expression. I think you're trying to do a good job with the edits and are maybe reading a bit too much into them. Not a criticism. That is how Trump talks. It's not at all uncommon for New Yorkers to use "wise guy" as I mentioned before. He was doing a lot of things, like standing between the subway cars which is extremely dangerous, and a few neighbors said he was a street bully. But it would be hard to sum them up without becoming undue. I like the quote because he wanted to sum up the problem with his behavior and he chose the language he's familiar with. He's not at all trying to be flattering of the behavior. He has said he was badly behaved in his books. That's why, for that particular edit I was saying he said it best. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In my reading, there is be a conflict between what Trump said to Billy Bush and how it was reported. Dervorguilla is right that Trump was speaking about what celebrities could do, not what he actually did. On the other hand, the reporting was a possible interpretation which no reliable sources or the Trump campaign challenged. It's not clear how we should proceed: when secondary sources inaccurately report facts we should correct them, but we cannot challenge their interpretation. Perhaps we could say, "News media reported that Trump bragged [etc.]...." There is no justification to include the quote because we want to show readers that the interpretation was wrong, which would be injecting our personal interpretation, despite the fact it has not appeared in reliable sources. The reason it should be included is because it has been widely quoted and hence is significant. Whether or not readers want to decide the media description is wrong is up to them, but we should not push them in that direction. We should not for example decide that "Trump says it better" and put his words in without commentary in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, Trump apologized but also challenged the interpretation by secondary sources, saying it was just talk (Anderson Cooper asked: “Have you ever done those things?” “No, I have not," Trump answered). Limbaugh said: "How can there can be assault if somebody's granting permission? How can it be assault if they let you do anything?" Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: When I say Trump says it better, I'm not referring to that particular quote. If you look further up at my comment to Dervorguilla, I agree with her that Trump is speaking in generalities. As for the media bias, that's not something we can control but somewhere there's a reliable source that points this out, that he's speaking in general terms. He might even have been quoted saying just that. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Show me where I say we should ONLY use Trump's words and not use any commentary from secondary sources. I've missed where you've put that diff. Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is an example of Trump speaking within an edit: When asked if he used the tax code to avoid paying taxes, he said, "Of course I did. Of course I did." He then went on to say he paid "hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes", calling it a "simple" thing. "I pay tax, and I pay federal tax, too", he said. I would not see any reason to remove that quote and sub in, "When asked if he used the tax code to avoid paying taxes, Trump said of course he did and that he pays his taxes." I don't think that paraphrase gives as much information to the reader as listening to Trump go on about it. He's quite vigorous in defending himself and that comes across better than an editor saying, "Trump defended himself by saying he pays his taxes." SW3 5DL (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the Access Hollywood bit, the article says,

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump was heard bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women. The hot mic recording was captured on a studio bus in which Trump and Billy Bush were preparing to film an episode of Access Hollywood. "I just start kissing them," Trump said, "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy."[418] During the recording, Trump also spoke of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily."[418] These statements were recorded several months after Trump married his third and current wife, Melania, who was pregnant at the time.

The line, "Trump was heard bragging and forcibly kissing and groping women," has several sources attached to it. That's the spin that was put on this immediately by the media. It's not the editors here doing that. If anyone feels that Trump was misunderstood in what he said, then a source must be found that agrees with him. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, this is an encyclopedia article and it statements information it presents should be accurate, precise and unambiguous. I think the summary below captures the story better than the current wording. Note that the "I'm smart" quote can be included not because the Donald tells it better but because it became the subject of notice, for example in "Trump: 'I'm smart' for not paying taxes" (CNN). The word count goes down from 141 to 100, more information is conveyed, it explains the details and significance of the controversy, and it includes the noteworthy quote not currently mentioned.

On October 1, 2016, the New York Times published a page from each of Trump's 1995 state income tax filings in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, which had been leaked to a reporter. They showed a loss of $916 million. Trump's opponents claimed this was an abuse of tax credits and speculated that since the losses could be carried forward that Trump may not have paid any income tax for over 20 years. In reply, Trump defended his use of the credits, saying "That makes me smart," and claimed to have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

TFD (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a very different edit. As a reader, it seems to say Donald Trump abused the tax laws and by doing so, hasn't paid taxes in 20 years, and somehow managed to slip that abuse past the IRS because as he says, "That makes me smart." He's a smart tax cheat who got away with it. Except that the tax papers seem to show he did take the $916 million loss in 1995 and there do not appear to be carry overs from it, and the tax credit abuse claim is not defined, and nor are the identities of his 'opponents' making these claims revealed. So as a reader, I have to ask, Is that edit accurate, precise and unambiguous? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It does not say Trump abused the tax laws has not paid taxes in 20 years, it says "Trump's opponents claimed this was an abuse of tax credits and speculated that [he] may not have paid any income tax for over 20 years." There is a distinction between allegations by ones opponents and facts. Furthermore the current wording although it does not explain the significance of the credit, but implies that it waa iffy (otherwise why mention it). Furthermore, there is a distinction between tax evasion, which is illegal and tax avoidance, which is legal, although some might see it as unethical.

Also, there is no reason to name Trump's opponents. He was running for office and his opponents were people who did not want him to win. If you like you could create a list article containing names of the thousands or tens of thousands of people who opposed Trump, which we could link to, so we would not have to mention them all in the paragraph about his 1995 taxes.

TFD (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I was simply offering a reader's viewpoint. It gave me the impression that his $916 million loss was a tax cheat and that he benefitted from that cheat for 20 years and when asked specifically about his abusing the tax credits he said. "That makes me smart." Was he even asked, specifically, if he abused the tax credits and then did he respond, "That makes me smart?" I don't see the benefit of putting speculation by opponents who are not able to see his full returns, and there is no law that requires him to provide them, who obviously want to harm him, as you mention, into his BLP. On the other hand, I do see the benefit in providing his words in response to direct questions, and when he was asked about his $916 million loss and if he took advantage of the tax laws he responded, "Of course I did. Of course I did." The speculation is just that, and it is also synthesis by the news organization. They know he didn't use a carry over, but want to give the impression that he did so they can suggest he did not pay taxes for 20 years. That is synthesis and it doesn't belong in his BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, you write: "They know he didn't use a carry over,..." Where do you get that from? When they asked him, his reply implied that they were right, IOW that he was smart for not paying taxes all those years. (If they were wrong, his reply makes no sense.) He was taking advantage of some technicalities in the tax code. It might be unethical, but it's not illegal. That's his MO.

You also write: "That is synthesis and it doesn't belong in his BLP." Actually it does belong. The only synthesis which is disallowed here is editorial synthesis. Otherwise we want others to do it and then we report it. Without such synthesis, we'd be reporting primary content. We want to report how others connect the dots, the ones we are not allowed to connect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see your point. Just so long as the quote is actually part of his answer directly to his opponents, otherwise that is Wikipedia doing the synthesis. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis is "comb[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The rule is against us doing it, not people who write reliable sources. All scientific theories are synthesis. All court verdicts are synthesis. All literary and artistic criticism is synthesis. In each case a human weighs evidence and comes to a conclusion. All fringe theories are also synthesis. Also, why would be even mention Trump's tax credit unless it was controversial? Your phrasing implies it was questionable without explicitly saying so. That is synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate polls? No, they were right.

Off-topic for Trump's bio; please discuss on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. — JFG talk 10:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of articles where this issue should be addressed, and I'm not sure how to start. The issue is the widespread idea, reported in numerous RS, that the pre-election polls during the 2016 campaign were inaccurate, when in fact they weren't. The polls predicted that Clinton would get the most votes and win. Well, they were right, at least in part; she did get the most votes, but no polls could have predicted that this was one of those rare occasions where a popular vote win wouldn't translate into an electoral college win. This article addresses the issue: "Others say Trump’s negative [popularity] poll numbers are no more reliable than the pre-election media polls last November that were supposedly far off the mark. "That’s a canard. The NBC/Wall Street Journal, CBS/New York Times and ABC/Washington Post final polls all showed Hillary Clinton winning by four percentage points. The Bloomberg poll, which I directed, had her winning by slightly less than three points. While losing in the Electoral College, she won the national popular vote by 2.1 percentage points, within all the polls’ margin of sampling error." We should make an effort to fix/counter the mistaken impression, left by numerous RS, that the polls were wrong. They were not, and this source can be used to puncture that balloon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC) The final polls showed Clinton winning by 4% while earlier polls had put her higher. They also showed her winning in the states that flipped to Trump (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) The NYT put her chances at 80%. Margin of error refers to individual polls. The pollsters say they got it wrong and are trying to figure out why. Probably they made incorrect assumptions about voter turnout among different demographic groups. TFD (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC) You don't seem to be addressing the situation above. Yes, there are individual places where they got it wrong, but even there only by very small (often less than 1%) margins (but that meant all those electoral votes went to Trump). She did get the most votes (the popular vote is the ONLY vote given by voters), so they were basically right. The polls just couldn't predict losing the electoral vote at the same time as getting so many more popular votes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC) You're right. The polls were basically right. It was what the voters were saying to the pollsters, I think that threw things off. Plus, in many instanes they were polling a pool of the same people. The states that flipped for Trump had more Democrats voting for him than Hillary. She spent too much time raising money in the Hamptons. Obama said it best after the election, "You have to go to every fish fry." Which he did in '08 and '12, but she did not. Plus there was the James Comey announcement in October. I think voters were saying they were voting for Hillary because they didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump. That probably gave her a false sense of security in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio. North Carolina, Florida, etc. She visited some of those states only at the end of the campaign, not throughout. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Some individual state polls were inaccurate, but the national polls were basically right. The polls said she'd get more votes, and Clinton did get more votes, nearly 3 million (2.1%) more. I think that's the point of the Bloomberg source. So the weeping about "inaccurate polls" is indeed a canard. It's a false idea, and this source provides a more accurate POV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC) The polls said she win the electoral vote by a far greater margin and projected she was ahead in all the states that Obama won and she lost. Margin of error relates to individual polls and is caused by the sample size, and in a race that close we would expect to see Trump winning in some of them. The error the pollsters made was in assuming that supporters of Obama and 2008 and 2012 and Sanders in 2016 would turn out and did not count Trump supporters who had not voted in 2012. TFD (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC) References

Breitbart tutorial on BLP

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.

---

Tom Ciccotta, "UC Berkeley Professor Banned from Wikipedia over Anti-Trump Edit Project", Breitbart, May 9, 2017.

A course description for Gelobter’s course on environmental justice activism at UC Berkeley posted on Wikipedia argued that the first few months of the Trump administration have been uniquely “anti-environmental, sexist, and racist.” The post was ultimately removed, as Wikipedia prevents unsourced negative claims about living people. A Wikipedia editor said that the line about the Trump administration was a “blatant BLP [Biography of Living Person] violation,” which means that commentary on a living person does not come from a “neutral point of view.”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do think this should be added to the article, and where? Breitbart is a notoriously unreliable source, so do you have other sources to justify the proposed edit?- MrX 11:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Even with good sourcing, I don't see this improving the article. Objective3000 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I agree with MrX and Objective3000. I don't see a place for that here or in any Trump article. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, Breitbart is not a reliable source. Second, this is not relevant to an article about Donald Trump. This would fit better in something like criticism of Wikipedia. κατάσταση 14:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As indicated in the heading, I added this for BLP training purposes only. :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:49, 10 May 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.

The lead is still false

Saying "the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent" implies there was only one opponent. So please change "his opponent" to "an opponent" or "his main opponent". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done This seems pretty uncontroversial, and certainly doesn't go against any emerging consensus in the survey above. ~Awilley (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Images in family section

There are two images in the family section, the first on the right, and the second on the left. On a laptop, the one on the left interferes with the next header ("Religion"). So, I suggest sliding the first image left, and the second image right. Standard practice is to not place images so they push headers to the right.[8] It also looks sloppy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 02:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

False claims about the Trump family living in Scotland

While we are getting used to "alternative facts" from Trump and his supporters, the sentence proposed by JFG ("The Trump family were [...] Presbyterian on his mother's side in Scotland") is blatantly wrong. The Trump family never ever lived in Scotland. The Trump family is not the same as Donald Trump the individual's ancestors on the non-Trump side of the family. We can say that Donald Trump's ancestors were Presbyterian on his mother's side in Scotland, but not that the Trump family were Presbyterian in Scotland. --Tataral (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest changing "the Trump family" to "Trump's ancestors" and the rest is fine. A person's bio is not concerned only with his or her patrilineage; that's about an arbitrary name-label, not genes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the point, but it also goes the other way, the Trump family being a distinct entity from the individual and the individual's ancestors. What I proposed was also to use the word ancestors in this context. --Tataral (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support "Trump's ancestors were Lutherans on his father's side in Germany and Presbyterian on his mother's side in Scotland.", which is not to say that I support changing it without a more substantial consensus than two editors. If this page stays true to form we'll debate the precise wording for two weeks, then take it to RfC with three options which will be expanded to seven during the course of the RfC, resulting in no consensus for change. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a rather optimistic prognosis. Let's see if we can short-circuit that with a bold edit. [9] ~Awilley (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the prose, Awilley! — JFG ^talk 14:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Dismissal of James Comey to end Russia investigation should be summarized in the lead section

The Dismissal of James Comey rightly has its own section here (as well as its own article), which both highlight the fact that this is a highly notable event. It should therefore be summarized in the lead section, for example like this: On 9 May 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, and two days later he said he had intended to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations due to the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; Trump was as a result accused of obstruction of justice by legal experts and politicians, leading to calls for impeachment. --Tataral (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Were there any legal experts or politicians who did not call for impeachment for obstructing justice? You give the impression that they all did, or that anyone who didn't was in a tiny insignificant minority. I suggest we await further developments (e.g. nomination of successor to Comey), before putting this in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Timing is a central issue

The subsection about this ought to mention the centrality of timing. Many of the politicians criticizing Trump's firing of Comey had previously themselves called for Comey's ouster, and their primary objection to Trump's action is not to the ouster but rather to the timing of it, given the ongoing Russia investigation.

• "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
• "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
• "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017)
• "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much the timing as the reason Trump had/gave for firing Comey. Firing the FBI Director to obstruct an investigation of himself and his associates is both a crime and an impeachable offence, so that's what the criticism is all about, not whether people like Comey or believe he did a good job in the past. Also, while many people questioned Trump's motives in the two days after it became known, this changed on 11 May when Trump directly confirmed that he had intended to fire the Director regardless of any recommendations (contradicting what his staff had said) and specifically mentioned the Russia investigation as his primary reason. Without that confirmation, it would only be an allegation/suspicion, but now it's a fact. --Tataral (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the reason being given by opponents of Trump's decision. See the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the reason given by Trump himself which is the central issue, and which could lead to his impeachment. The timing is merely related to the suspicion that what Trump later confirmed was the case. --Tataral (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to edit your comments after they've been replied to, please indicate that using strikethroughs and underlines. Also, please see the sources I cited above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tataral's comments. Let's not try to promote the narrative of Democrat's hypocrisy and take the focus away from the much more relevant conflict of interest at play.- MrX 18:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical about it. The politicians who want Comey replaced may still want him replaced, just not at a time when the president may be subject to criminal investigation. That's the whole issue of timing, and reliable sources are not evidently reporting it as a diversionary tactic. Bipartisan support for firing Comey at some point in time is very relevant here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, but is this fact really relevant to Trump's biography? You seem to posit that what makes the firing controversial is that Trump didn't fire Comey on January 20, when what actually makes it controversial is that he was fired days after giving testimony and at a time when the Russia-Trump campaign collusion investigation was heating up.- MrX 20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if we have a whole subsection about this, then it's relevant to mention that it's when he fired Comey that's controversial, not that he did so at all, given support from many quarters for the latter. I think I've said all I wanted to about this timing issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Multiple FBI insiders said they believe the real reason Comey was fired was [X]." The FBI has 35,100 insiders, so I have to suspect that our better-educated readers would attribute the reported findings to the well-known problem of reporting bias. Also, the investigation has been "heating up" for several months, so it's a straightforward matter to calculate the statistical significance of Trump's timing. A Wikipedia article is supposed to "better inform the reader"; and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of helpful data that's come out yet. Also, the current language fails WP:EDITORIAL (see sentence 3). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Dismissal of James Comey to end Russia investigation should be summarized in the lead section

The Dismissal of James Comey rightly has its own section here (as well as its own article), which both highlight the fact that this is a highly notable event. It should therefore be summarized in the lead section, for example like this: On 9 May 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, and two days later he said he had intended to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations due to the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; Trump was as a result accused of obstruction of justice by legal experts and politicians, leading to calls for impeachment. --Tataral (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Were there any legal experts or politicians who did not call for impeachment for obstructing justice? You give the impression that they all did, or that anyone who didn't was in a tiny insignificant minority. I suggest we await further developments (e.g. nomination of successor to Comey), before putting this in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Timing is a central issue

The subsection about this ought to mention the centrality of timing. Many of the politicians criticizing Trump's firing of Comey had previously themselves called for Comey's ouster, and their primary objection to Trump's action is not to the ouster but rather to the timing of it, given the ongoing Russia investigation.

• "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
• "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
• "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017)
• "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much the timing as the reason Trump had/gave for firing Comey. Firing the FBI Director to obstruct an investigation of himself and his associates is both a crime and an impeachable offence, so that's what the criticism is all about, not whether people like Comey or believe he did a good job in the past. Also, while many people questioned Trump's motives in the two days after it became known, this changed on 11 May when Trump directly confirmed that he had intended to fire the Director regardless of any recommendations (contradicting what his staff had said) and specifically mentioned the Russia investigation as his primary reason. Without that confirmation, it would only be an allegation/suspicion, but now it's a fact. --Tataral (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the reason being given by opponents of Trump's decision. See the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the reason given by Trump himself which is the central issue, and which could lead to his impeachment. The timing is merely related to the suspicion that what Trump later confirmed was the case. --Tataral (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to edit your comments after they've been replied to, please indicate that using strikethroughs and underlines. Also, please see the sources I cited above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tataral's comments. Let's not try to promote the narrative of Democrat's hypocrisy and take the focus away from the much more relevant conflict of interest at play.- MrX 18:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical about it. The politicians who want Comey replaced may still want him replaced, just not at a time when the president may be subject to criminal investigation. That's the whole issue of timing, and reliable sources are not evidently reporting it as a diversionary tactic. Bipartisan support for firing Comey at some point in time is very relevant here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, but is this fact really relevant to Trump's biography? You seem to posit that what makes the firing controversial is that Trump didn't fire Comey on January 20, when what actually makes it controversial is that he was fired days after giving testimony and at a time when the Russia-Trump campaign collusion investigation was heating up.- MrX 20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if we have a whole subsection about this, then it's relevant to mention that it's when he fired Comey that's controversial, not that he did so at all, given support from many quarters for the latter. I think I've said all I wanted to about this timing issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Multiple FBI insiders said they believe the real reason Comey was fired was [X]." The FBI has 35,100 insiders, so I have to suspect that our better-educated readers would attribute the reported findings to the well-known problem of reporting bias. Also, the investigation has been "heating up" for several months, so it's a straightforward matter to calculate the statistical significance of Trump's timing. A Wikipedia article is supposed to "better inform the reader"; and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of helpful data that's come out yet. Also, the current language fails WP:EDITORIAL (see sentence 3). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruption?

Regarding this edit summary, what did I or User:Awilley have to do with the edit? What was my involvement, SW3? Accusing people of disruption is a serious charge. It can even cause innocent editors to recuse themselves from making article edits, as I have voluntarily done with regard to this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I had removed the unnecessary outdent from SW3's post. It might interest SW3 to know that one of the strange hallmarks of tendentious editors is that in threaded discussions they go out of their way to have their posts flush with the margin. (See Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_fails_to_appropriately_thread_their_posts_on_talk_pages.) In any case, having zero indent in a bulletted survey section is messy, which is why I fixed it. But I don't think the issue is important enough to warrant any further discussion here. ~Awilley (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: My comments are threaded properly and not constantly flush with the margin, but when that particular thread started getting longer, I used the outdent so I could better see what I was writing. The need to do that has nothing to do with tendentious editing. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Incidentally, I often use outdent when presenting a bulleted list or blockquote, which seems a valid reason. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I apologize for including you in that. You've got a new comment somewhere in there and I thought you'd done rearranging but you'd not. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Awards, honors, and distinctions section add:

The Ellis Island Medals of Honor

Awarded in 1986, the 100th anniversary of the statue of liberty and the first year the medal was offered.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/16/nyregion/80-named-as-recipients-of-ellis-island-awards.html

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/5zGOrSR0rIKFmziyXGWY7g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/4757a62168a6433f905716409a1f5ae1 GuruNemesis (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a notable award or achievement. TheValeyard (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"87 prominent Americans of foreign ancestry"! "Donald J. Trump, German, developer"! Sounds like no natives or British need apply... --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? That award is total BS! Per the NYT link, "The medals will be presented to the recipients, all either naturalized or native Americans, at a ceremony Oct. 27 on Ellis Island." Donald Trump is neither. Maybe they were thinking of some other Donald Trump? --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The article later says "by ancestry" which makes more sense - because MOST of the people on the list are neither native American or naturalized citizens. And most of them are people you don't particularly think of as "foreign ancestry". Oh, here's the misunderstanding: they didn't mean Native Americans, they meant "native born". And most are not people you think of as having "foreign ancestry". John Denver? Yogi Berra? George H.W. Bush (but not George W. Bush)? Anita Bryant for heavens sake? (Her Wikipedia article doesn't even mention her ancestry.) I mean by their definition, the vast majority of Americans are of "foreign ancestry". I certainly am, even though I am a fifth-generation Californian with ancestry as mixed as most of us (what I call Great American Mongrel). So the award wasn't total BS but it's still meaningless. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Just commenting here that the Ellis Island Medals of Honor has an article, so it should be notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. And here on Snopes is a picture of him at the ceremony. Note that Hillary Clinton also received the award but it is not mentioned on List of awards and honors received by Hillary Clinton. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Uncle

Please consider moving the last sentence of the "Ancestry" section to the end of the first paragraph of "Early life and education". The sentence I'm referring to says, "Fred's brother John (Donald Trump's uncle) became a notable physicist and inventor.[10]" Actually, John was not an ancestor, given that Donald Trump is not descended from his uncle (the sentence about John also looks weird as a one-sentence paragraph). Moreover, John lived until 1985 (whereas Trump's brother Freddie only lived until 1981), and so John was part of Trump's early life. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I'm not sure your approach would improve things for readers. The Ancestry section has one paragraph for each of this notable ancestors: grandfather/grandmother, father and mother. His uncle is not a direct ancestor but he is from the previous generation, just like his parents. It's also easier to introduce him just after we discuss Trump's father Fred (John's brother). The Early life section is focused on Donald Trump alone, and there are no sources that mention his uncle's influence on his life (or perhaps that's mentioned in biographical books? Can't check, I don't have them). Finally the Family section includes the family he created (wives, children and grandchildren) + a mention of notable people in his generation and below, i.e. his sister Maryanne Barry and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Placing his uncle here would look weird imho. — JFG ^talk 14:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, thanks for the reply. I agree it would look weird in the "Family" section, and I did not suggest putting it there. I suggested putting it in the "Early life" section which already mentions people in John's generation. Until today, I never heard of an ancestor who is not a direct ancestor, but you're right that there is such a thing as a "collateral ancestor" though I doubt most people would be familiar with that term or concept. Wherever this is located, it should not be in a one-sentence paragraph like it is now; per Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Paragraphs, "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." The article John G. Trump does not mention any interaction between Donald Trump and his uncle, but Trump mentioned him in The Art of the Deal, p. 69: "With my father's help, my uncle, John Trump, got his Ph.D. from MIT and eventually became a full professor of physics and one of the country's great scientists." Also in Trump's book The America We Deserve he wrote a lot more at p. 25: "My Uncle John Trump was an MIT professor and a brilliant man. He had a clear and compelling view of the future including the strong belief that one day the United States might be subject to a terrorist strike that would turn Manhattan into Hiroshima II. I always respected my Uncle John but sometimes found myself wondering if maybe he wasn't exaggerating just a bit. Today we know that John Trump knew exactly what he was talking about." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)