Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Mueller investigation

the Justice Department appointed Comey's predecessor Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters. - This sentence on Mueller's investigation is quite long and prominent. Yet this is hardly even mentioned in the body. Mueller's name isn't even mentioned elsewhere! Reckon this should be shortened to the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters. and some more information on the investigation added to the dismissal of Comey section since this is one of the most important matters related to his administration. Galobtter (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I gave a shot at rephrasing the sentence in the lead:[1] not mentioning Mueller by name, but linking to the dedicated article about his investigation. It's still a bit long for the lead, though. — JFG ^talk 18:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The article needs more inputed in the article. We should mention him by name per WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to stick to the official portrait?

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.

---

The old one seemed way better to me; he looks lunatic (hey, just saying!) with that goofy grin portrait. 2.51.17.85 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's convention to use the free official portrait as the infobox image. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If he’s grinning, people say the grin is goofy. If he’s frowning, people say he should be grinning. It’s useful to have a standard answer, like we just use the official portrait. Otherwise we’ll still be debating the image when Barron Trump or Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky is president. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 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.

I don't think Gorsuch belongs in the lead

It seems very odd to mention Gorsuch by name in the lead section. The President appoints scores of people, his cabinet to start with, and many other influential civil servants such as Directors of the FBI, the CIA and so on and so forth. No cabinet member, not even the most senior such as Rex Tillerson, and no other appointees either, are mentioned by name in the lead section. In the entire world the position of judge, even on the country's supreme court, would be seen as junior to the entire cabinet and 99% of the world would regard it as a routine appointment of a civil servant. I don't think Gorsuch is regarded as more influential in the US than other Trump appointees such as Tillerson and other cabinet members either. --Tataral (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to leave “Neil Gorsuch” out of the lead, but still say he successfully nominated a Supreme Court Justice. It’s a life position, and the Court now occupies a bigger role in American life than courts do in the vast majority of other countries (e.g. the people of Ireland legalized gay marriage by voting on it whereas it was done by judicial decision in the U.S.). But we needn’t name Gorsuch in the lead, because it’s too much detail, and anyway the whole reason they wear black robes is to symbolize that individual personalities aren’t supposed to matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The judgement of whether to include it should not be based upon the the role being bigger compared to other countries but the notability of Trump in appointing him. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. In an administration bereft of achievements, the appointment is quite important. Trump himself has touted it as being one of great accomplishments. You can see this CNN article where it is talked about as possibly greatest achievment till april, and nothing much has happened since. Galobtter (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The nomination of Neil Gorsuch was a particularly controversial and widely-covered story, which has lasting impact on the balance of the US Supreme Court; this is why it belongs in the lead section. However we should certainly review the contents of this paragraph, which is meant to summarize the key issues of Trump's presidency so far. The one-off missile strike in Syria in response to a chemical attack did not develop into a bigger story, and should imho be removed. — JFG ^talk 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lasting impact"? We don't know that yet, that's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. He has served for a couple of months, less than most of Trump's cabinet members who have far more power (e.g. Tillerson who directs US foreign policy and has some 70,000 people working directly for him, compared to the handful of assistants a judge gets), and hasn't done anything noteworthy. The appointment of a judge is not, in itself, an "achievement" any more than the appointment of his cabinet, or his other statutory duties. The fact that he would even see this as an "achievement" merely demonstrates his lack of actual achievements, but still, Gorsuch doesn't deserve to be the only appointee mentioned in the lead (among many who are far more influential and whose appointments were also widely discussed in RS). --Tataral (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Please note that I did not call the Gorsuch appointment an "achievement", either in the article or in this discussion. We certainly cannot guess what his lasting impact will be, if any; however most sources reporting on this appointment did mention that it would surely have an impact, especially as the last Obama Supreme Court nominee had been filibusted by the GOP-controlled Senate, paving the way for a more conservative Justice. We go by sources… — JFG ^talk 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of Gorsuch from the lede. In a biography of Trump's entire life, the appointment isn't especially noteworthy. We do not mention the two justices appointed by Obama in the lede of Barack Obama. The noteworthy aspect of Gorsuch's appointment came prior to Trump's election, when Republicans employed extraordinary measures to prevent Obama from appointing Garland - nothing to do with Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the proposal above (at the start of this thread) is that we stop mentioning “Gorsuch by name” in the lead, and I support that. But I also support mentioning in the lead that he successfully nominated an (unnamed) Supreme Court Justice, for the reasons I already gave. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a significant achievement in his life. It's fine in the body, but not in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is correct that the proposal was to remove just the name, not necessarily the fact that he had appointed a judge. If Trump really considers this appointment his life's work, I don't really care that much if we mention that he appointed a judge without naming him (although I personally would consider that silly, I don't find it worth the effort to oppose it). In that context the key issue appears to be the appointment of a judge in itself, not the specific person who was appointed. --Tataral (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removing it, or removing Gorsuch's name (what does that accomplish?). Leave it in the lede, as is. This is his only major legislative accomplishment, and possibly the single most lasting effect of his presidency. It's an eight-word sentence, there's room for it. We manage to find room for 20 words about his travel ban, which is nowhere near as significant or long-lasting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Like I said above, RSes are talking about it being his most significant accomplishment. I don't really see a way to reword it either to save words while removing Gorsuch's name. Galobtter (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Personally, I don’t think appointing a justice is an accomplishment since a president is handed the opportunity and such appointments have an 80% approval rate. But, what I personally think is irrelevant. If RS say it’s an accomplishment, and there are so few accomplishments, it belongs in the lead. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removing Gorsuch from lede. Widely cited by RS as the only thing POTUS has given his backers in the first 9+ months of his presidency. And a significant number of his voters were driven by the single issue of court appointments. (As many editors here know.) SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. Given the power of the Supreme Court and how a single justice can be the difference in how a case is decided, appointing a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important things that modern presidents do. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal. This is a no-brainer. Supreme Court appointments aren't mentioned in the lead for neither Barack Obama, George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton. Fixed245 (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And the fact that Trump has accomplished little doesn't mean that we should elevate otherwise pedestrian accomplishments to the lead. It means that we should let his list of actions speak for themselves, without embellishment. Fixed245 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

New Wikilink redirect

Shouldn't the redirect in the lead for the Paris Agreement go to United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? I also suggest adding the 2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal to the lead on foreign policy. It is a highly notable event in foreign policy, and just as notable as the partial undoing of the Cuban Thaw.

As I'm a new account, I can not change it. Anyone mind updating it, seems like a no brainer! DoDoDoDoDoDo (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The first one doesn't make sense, as you'd expect the link for "Paris Agreement" to go to the Paris agreement article. The second one seems ok, but the body also may need to add that. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Least popular president ever

Why is this not brought up? AHC300 (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's there, look under Donald_Trump#Impeachment_efforts_and_polling. ValarianB (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Polling within Party

I disagree with this edit. It’s true that polling better among your own party is normal for a president, but it’s very abnormal for there to be such a huge disparity between the parties regarding an incumbent president. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you. The sentence includes polling of both parties and says it is lowest among opposition party - hardly "Seems like this was added to blunt the "least popular" part". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. The metric to measure presidential popularity for the lat 80-90 years is the presidential job approval rating, not a breakdown by party. The current president's approval rating is abysmal, as borne out by the sources, Newswweek, Time, among many others. This was a naked attempt to soften the freefall. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the way we have it now does convey free fall, whereas the reality is different within the President’s party, which is very unusual. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Either way it is probably at this time not appropriate for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think anyone is disputing that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support including Trump's historically awful approval rating in the lead We haven't seen approval ratings this low since The Fall of the Roman Empire. If Trump's low approval rating isn't encyclopedic, then then project should shut down and call it a day. Are you people shitting me? Trump's low approval rating is not "lead-worthy"? Why again? Indeed, his approval rating is so obviously lead-worthy as to call into question the objectivity and judgment of any editor who thinks otherwise.70.208.69.150 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on November 26, 2017 AD

POV rant O3000 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note If someone wants to revert to before this IP edited this page then special:diff/812145405] looks fine. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Comment Please see my not at the bottom. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Please add steak salesman to the list of Trump's occupations. Please see more details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=LyONt_ZH_aw https://thinkprogress.org/a-definitive-history-of-trump-steaks-e0e6fc31b689/ Also don't forget to add racist landlord to the list of occupations. See the details here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html https://www.villagevoice.com/2015/07/20/how-a-young-donald-trump-forced-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan/ Also add Putin's agent, per Steele dossier: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/10/25/what-the-trump-dossier-says-and-what-it-doesnt/ Also add multi-level marketing guru, as shown here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trumps-ponzi-scheme/475254/ http://prospect.org/article/trumps-always-been-con-artist-now-hes-sucker http://nymag.com/nymag/features/70831/index2.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/23/the-trump-network-sought-to-make-people-rich-but-left-behind-disappointment/ http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2017/02/the_trump_era_will_be_a_boon_for_multilevel_marketing_companies.html It is important we mention these episodes and add some objectivity to our article, which contains an embarrassing amount of cheerleading and fawning. Even if you THINK that Trump is a "successful businessman" rather than a con artist, racist, and fraud, it is important that your incorrect views be balanced by the correct ones, such as mine. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT ADVERTISING. 70.208.69.150 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Note I support the removal of this talkpage section. It looks like BLP violation and unhelpful nonsense to me, but I don't want to overstep 1RR. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"asking Muslim leaders to drive out extremists" in the lead

How in the world is this important enough to be in the lead paragraph about his accomplishments? It's not an official policy, it was a statement made at one speech, and it almost never appears in any other lists of presidential action. It should be removed.

Also, his recent rise in conservative politics was driven largely by his role as the most prominent voice in the debunked Birther conspiracy theory. There should be a sentence on that, after "he long expressed interest in politics". Fixed245 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that asking Muslim leaders to drive out extremists should be removed from the lead. His views on birther should be in another discussion I think, so that we don't go off topic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree at least with the first issue. Also agree with separating the issues. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we have a consensus, so someone can make the edits (can't edit the page myself). Fixed245 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Y'all have clear consensus for removal, and I just cut the offending phrase. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree (on removing it and seperating the issues). If I remember correctly it was JFG who added it to replace previous wording about syrian airstrikes. Galobtter (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Been away for a while, but for the record I don't mind the removal of this tidbit. Looked more significant to me than the ephemeral Syrian airstrike, given that the Saudi-US relationship is being reinforced since Trump and Bin Salman have taken the lead. We'll see how this develops in the coming months. That's more about the presidency than about Trump's bio anyway. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Trump a conspiracy theorist?

Trump just retweeted a white nationalist conspiracy theorist website and doesn't believe his own access Hollywood tape. Why is he not labeled this? AHC300 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@AHC300: Do you have a WP:RS for that claim? Also remember that RT's don't equal endorsements. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a retweet. He quoted the tweet and even thanked them for their site. That's as clear an endorsement as you're going to get. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't use the label unless we have solid RS for the label (sometimes not even then; see "liar"). Without those links this is WP:FORUM and should be hatted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No, and neither is Hillary, even though she believes in the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy"...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources seem to refer to him in as such, or some variation of that term-

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-long-history-conspiracy-theories-n567076
• http://www.newsweek.com/2017/07/07/trump-jfk-kennedy-assassination-documents-secret-cia-russia-cuba-oswald-deep-627751.html
• http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/trump-kennedy-conspiracy-theories/index.html
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/the-conspiracy-on-behalf-of-conspiracy-theorist-donald-trump.html
• http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/trump-infowars-alex-jones-clinton-conspiracy-theories/
• http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-asked-the-cia-director-meet-conspiracy-theorist
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/06/30/some-they-sound-crazy-but-trump-conspiracy-theories-resonate-with-wide-swath-public/7HFzyTzJAio6vn0QGGcTdO/story.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/donald-trump-conspiracy-theorist-campaign-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting

Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And out of the tens of thousands of reliable sources about this article's topic don't refer to him as a conspiracy theorist? We have to look at the topic as whole. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Note Category:American conspiracy theorists includes this page currently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Trump's longstanding involvement in the birther thing makes him a conspiracy theorist. The sources listed above are compelling. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of your stance on Trump, I'd say calling him a conspiracy theorist, especially in the header of the article, is a mistake for a myriad of reasons. There is a pretty large discrepancy between supporting or believing in conspiracies and actively attempting to persuade others to believe or support said conspiracies. People like Mark Dice and Alex Jones could reasonably be called conspiracy theorists because their profession involves the an argument for conspiracy theories and the idea that they are true, whereas even if Trump had tried to make a Tweet telling people that they should believe in some white nationalist conspiracy theory because he read about it, that is still not his job nor is it even something that's relevant to his role as President. And in this case, he's even farther from that definition considering he did not specifically endorse a conspiracy theory, but merely endorsed another business whose goal is to push conspiracy theories as fact. His denial of the Access Hollywood tapes would also not really classify him as a conspiracy theorist in my eyes since a conspiracy theory usually involves something on a much larger scale. Benmite (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, how does Wikipedia handle conspiracy theorists? Do you have to be a full-time professional to be labelled a CT here? I see people listed [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:John_F._Kennedy_conspiracy_theorists here] and here and here who have other jobs, including politician. I think it goes beyond merely believing in a CT or two, otherwise we'd have millions in the category, but when there's a global audience identifying Trump as a CT, I think we've gone well beyond the point of keeping oddball views private, wouldn't you? --Pete (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump still privately believes in Obama's birth certificate is fake. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-birth-certificate-nyt/index.html AHC300 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer the original question posed, is the Pope a Catholic? Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't something about the sexual misconduct allegations be in the lead?

This seems to be the standard for everyone else post-Weinstein. It's not like the publicity or the detail isn't there. We could say, as the last sentence of the campaign paragraph, "[T]rump has also been the subject of numerous sexual misconduct allegations, many of which arose during the campaign." Nick845 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ehh..unlike say for weinstein or spacey, there haven't been any long-term effects of it - I believe weinstein and spacey's careers are over while these allegations were treated as just part of the campaign. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think due to the quantity of claims against Trump and the time span, it is worth putting in a sentence like "Trump has been alleged of various cases of sexual misconduct". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible. Hmm regarding the wording - just had a thought - who exactly is doing the alleging in regards to the billy bush recording? But anyhow, something like "Allegations of sexual misconduct arose during the campaign" is less awkward, and the allegations are mostly during that time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bush video is not an allegation but a fact; nobody has claimed it was fabricated; it just happens to be covered in an article titled "allegations" because that's preferable to any alternative. Similarly, just for the sake of brevity, we wouldn't worry about that little consideration if something were added to the lead. I don't have an opinion as to inclusion in the lead, yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the 140 edits to Charlie Rose in the last two days, one would think at least a sentence in this article’s lead would make sense. But as said above, the allegations against Trump and the Hollywood tape seem to have had no effect. I probably wouldn’t add it but wouldn’t argue against it. O3000 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There’s currently a court case involving Summer Zervos. If Pres. Trump is held liable in that case, it should probably go in the lead. There’s no rush to predict that verdict though. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well of course - but those allegations can still be significant. We're not predicting that verdict.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

They would be a heck of a lot more significant if he’s held liable, and until then there’s a presumption of innocence, so I’d treat it like opinion polling and a zillion other things by putting it later in the BLP. There’s not a looming election that requires people to make an imminent judgment about it. If we put accusations of non-consensual sex or sexual harassment into the Bill Clinton lead, I would still object to it here because there’s an ongoing court case here along with a presumption of innocence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Support adding to the lede. Has a huge about of coverage and cultural ramifications are huge.Casprings (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose adding this to the lede. The man is innocent until proven guilty.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa! I cannot believe you are pulling the "innocent until proven guilty" card after "LOCK HER UP!" That's funny on so many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the lede of Hillary Clinton include the phrase "Lock her up"? No, it does not. So this is off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Being convicted is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. There aren't many readers who don't know what "allegations" means. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, allegations are gossip. Gossip is not encyclopedic. Anybody can be accused of anything anytime by anyone. I think that would be a BLP violation and should not appear in the lede. If he ever gets convicted or even admits it like Bill Clinton did, then sure. But I believe it sets a dangerous precedent if we add it to the lede--no matter how one feels about President Trump.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Allegation" is not the same as "gossip" -- Could you rephrase that with a bit more reasoning behind your opposition? I do think it would be helpful if one of those who favors inclusion could suggest specific text for us to consider. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose in lead this is not the same as Weinstein, et al. Those people admitted their wrongdoing. If we include it in the lead it will be in violation of our BLP policy and also against our policy of what is included in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the argument (which we have recently heard from Sarah Sanders and from Trump himself) that if the guy admits it and apologizes, hey, throw the bum out - but if he denies it and calls his accusers liars, then all is fine and dandy with him. What kind of moral lesson is that? As long as you keep insisting you didn't do anything wrong you are free and clear, but if you take responsibility like a grownup you are scum? We at Wikipedia need to evaluate people by the evidence - and not take "oh, well, he denies it" as ending the conversation. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason others pointed out above. I made a similar comment regarding Woody Allen's lede, in both cases the allegations had little effect on their careers. This makes them different from the likes of Bob Packwood or Harvey Weinstein, whose careers were ended over allegations. Also, wasn't there an RfC about this during the election? The Billy Bush tape and misconduct allegations were in the lede but were removed.LM2000 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:UNDUE. The sexual misconduct allegations have not, as of yet, significantly affected Trump. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. As far as I remember this already was included in the lead and we had a clear consensus to include it. It has obviously been unilaterally removed without consensus, and should be put back in. There's no question at all that it's highly significant and noteworthy; there are no serious encyclopedic arguments against its inclusion. --Tataral (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a encyclopedic argument against its inclusion: WP:UNDUE. It's simply not important enough to warrant. For heaven's sake, North Korea isn't even mentioned in the lede and that's far more important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

But this article is his bio, not his Presidency. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Then it's even less relevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wha? North Korea is an important national security matter that he's dealing with as president not in any personal capacity. Whatever credible allegations or evidence relate to his personal character or actions would go in this article about Trump the man. They may be relevant to his person and character without affecting his professional performance in any capacity. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to confuse the fact that North Korea is an important issue to the world in general, with what is important in a biography of Donald Trump. The allegations against him are hugely important in Trump's biography; they dominated coverage of Trump on a global scale for months on end, during the entire election, and they have an in-depth article specifically on the allegations. That very fact alone demonstrates that they are important enough to be summarized in the lead section on its main subject. While perhaps not dominating coverage any longer due to other scandals, Russia etc., extensive coverage of this issue also continues until this day, but it's a not a requirement that there is eternal and constant coverage of an issue, and that wouldn't be a reasonable requirement either. --Tataral (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

What I am saying is that per WP:WEIGHT, the amount of coverage in this article should reflect the amount of coverage found in reliable sources and that North Korea has received far more coverage in regards to this article's topic than the sexual misconduct allegations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that. --Tataral (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to discuss whether in the foreign policy part we should add north korea. I think the main opposition to that is that nothing actually has happened - it has received a lot of coverage though Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Al Franken does not have his sexual misconduct allegations in his lead, so no, not every post-Weinstein guy accused of sexual misconduct has their allegations in their lead. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Putting these types of unsubstantiated accusations into the lead of an article is inappropriate. Unless he admits to it, gets convicted over it, or the allegations can be substantiated with some kind of proof it shouldn't be in the lead section. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Weight is determined by the coverage of allegations in proportion to overall coverage of the subject of the article. TFD (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose John F. Kennedy doesn't have anything about his sexcapades in the lead, and Bill Clinton only has In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for matters related to a scandal that involved White House employee Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in 1999 and proceeded to complete his term in office. There may be problems with the lede, but adding this would not improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose People are citing WP:UNDUE, which is appropriate, but we need to think what we mean by it. This is his biography. He is 70 years old. For most of those 70 years he has been a very public figure, the subject of heavy coverage. Our coverage, and especially our lede, need to be proportionate to that total coverage. These sexual allegations have only come up, or become significant to his public persona, in the last year or two. Even now they are less covered than (say) his Tweets. It is appropriate for us to have the information in the article text, but this is simply not a big enough issue, in the entire sweep of his life, to put in the lede. That could change if it becomes career-ending or something, but unless that appears likely (and if it didn't end his campaign it is not likely to end his presidency) it does not belong in the lede IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  1) Even if it were true that this issue had only been covered in the last two years, it wouldn't be a relevant argument. Trump derives 95% (or more) of his notability from his political career that he started in that period, and everything he did in the 70 years before that is of far less importance as far as his notability and thus this article is concerned. 2) In addition: The allegations in question have received coverage in RS for some 30 years. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been against including Weinstein-era allegations in the lede because it's UNDUE and RECENTISM. And I think that's even more so in the case of Trump than Weinstein or Kevin Spacey, since, like others pointed out, in those cases the allegations played a much bigger role in their careers than in Trump's. I think the lede here currently does a pretty good job at covering the main aspects of Trump's bio without getting into too much detail. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support Sexual misconduct allegations are in Clinton lead, and he wasn't accusing of raping 19 women, some as young as 13 years old. Trump's admitted non-consensual vagina-grabbing activities are clearly one of the most notable things about him.70.208.69.150 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The points that have been made look like the following: A) litigation isn't final yet (well, that's true for everyone who's been recently accused so far, and the proposed sentence doesn't mention the legal side anyway); B) "innocent until proven guilty" (see above); C) he hasn't admitted wrongdoing (except he has - Access Hollywood tape - and the allegations are substantial and detailed; regardless, the same is true for Clarence Thomas, even Weinstein, etc.); D) this had little effect on his reputation (how do we know? The majority of the country did not vote for him or actively dislikes him, and it could certainly be in part due to these allegations. I assume polling would show that a substantial portion of Americans are aware of this and find that it colors their perception of him); (E) not important enough relative to coverage in the article (could easily say the same about all of the policy accomplishments listed); F) the allegations only arose recently (but they concern conduct that goes back for decades). Overall, I don't see how a single sentence is any way undue, biased, or inconsistent with the broad treatment given to figures in similar positions.

Still, if there continues to be a consensus (even one seemingly dominated by Trump sympathizers), I won't press the case. I do think there's one obvious edit that can be made: moving the sub-section on the allegations from the section on the campaign to the section on his personal life. That would be a much more appropriate place; current placement conveys the misimpression that this was a run-of-the-mill political attack, limited to conduct that arose during the campaign. That in itself is biased. Nick845 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a false equivalence you make comparing Weinstein with Donald Trump and Clarence Thomas. Weinstein was on tape admitting to grabbing a specific woman's breast, there is no such evidence against Thomas. The allegations against Trump are not "substantial and detailed", telling by the way you provide no evidence of any sort, not even the tape where Trump never said he himself performs the sexual act everybody quotes from the footage. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I really think everyone here should be forced to read the the article on allegations against Trump, top to bottom, before commenting. That's because you not only missed the point - evidence aside, all three figures have *publicly* denied any non-consensual conduct - but you also seem completely unaware of the depth of the Trump allegations. Nick845 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – This was campaign fodder. No significant case has been pursued after the election. We also didn't see a renewed slew of accusations against Trump after the Weinstein scandal, and you'd think Trump would be an easy target nowadays if there was any "meat" to the stories… — JFG ^talk 10:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Access Hollywood tape isn't a "story" as you put it, so the "meat" is already there. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Against whom is the Access Hollywood tape a sexual misconduct allegation against? PackMecEng (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Access Hollywood tape gives credibility to the many, many allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So basically no one? Especially since there is no one even saying he actually did those things. You would think with the number of people that came forward during the campaign someone would say "yup he did that thing he said he could do on that tape". It appears to have little to no lasting impact. PackMecEng (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The reluctance to come forward with sexual abuse allegations is well-documented and well-understood, and it goes triple for allegations against Trump in today's political climate. If someone did come forward to say that Trump grabbed them by the pussy, it would be somewhat pointless unless they could produce 100% unimpeachable video of it happening, an extremely unlikely occurrence. It would simply be added to the pile of "unproven" allegations, and the accuser would become another perpetual target for harassment, death threats, etc. After seeing what the other accusers have gone through for no effect, most women would choose to just let it go, I think.
That any elected official, let alone the leader of the free world, could have said those things, true or not, has plenty of "lasting impact" with plenty of the population, American and otherwise.
Anyway, Kristin Anderson alleged that he "groped her beneath her skirt" and Jessica Leeds said he "tried to put his hand up her skirt". One in a nightclub, the other on an airplane. There's your pointless corroboration, already in the "unproven" pile. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I see where you are coming from on those prior accusations, though definitely not pointless. I had missed those two. I am still on the fence if it should be in the lead though. PackMecEng (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to the sub-section move that I suggested? I think the argument for the status quo is that the allegations arose during the campaign. The argument for a change is that the allegations concern conduct that is A) non-political and B) goes back decades before the campaign. I think the latter case is clearly stronger. I can't edit the page directly, but if someone wants to go ahead and make the move, please do so. Nick845 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

While some allegations date back decades, the fact they got RS coverage during the final weeks of the campaign and then vanished, would support keeping them in the campaign section. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JFG. There's actually next to nothing about the allegations in this article, most of the relevant section is spent detailing the fallout from the Billy Bush tape, which occurred at the height of the election.LM2000 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Vanished"? Are you aware there's an ongoing legal action? Are you aware that mainstream media coverage continues? You are *very* misinformed. Even still, every other part of the campaign section is about Trump's political conduct. Sexual misconduct allegations - Trump's personal conduct - stand out as a clear outlier. As for the content of the sub-section, you're right that a large portion of it is focused on the Bush tape. If anything, though, that's an argument for adding more detail about the other allegations. Basically, take your MAGA hat off and be objective. Nick845 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Rather than tolerate WP:AGF violations in small amounts, I prefer a zero tolerance policy and nipping that in the bud. Don't make accusations of POV editing (I had to look up the MAGA acronym) without far more evidence than you have here. You could have made your point very well without that last sentence. Play the ball, not the man. A good move at this point would be to strike that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion on the basis that the allegations relate to Trump's career over decades, they include people such as Trump's wife, they are underscored by the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape, and they have been of contimuing mainstream media interest. If we are including similar allegations in similar bios, what's different about this one? --Pete (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

DJT Foundation in infobox

Is there a consensus to include this in the infobox? We don't have "Chairman of the Board of Clinton Foundation" in Bill Clinton's infobox, so I see no reason to include a similar entry here. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists or doesn't exist is not a valid argument unless a higher level consensus was made. I however do think that the removal of this could be appropriate. Not notable for the foundation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks a bit weird to include his chairmanship of the Trump Foundation while excluding his main role as chairman of the Trump Organization. I seem to recall there was consensus to exclude TTO chairmanship from the infobox, so the minor Foundation role should not be there either. — JFG ^talk 10:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

why was chairman changed to chair? AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Somebody objected to using a gendered word.[2] I'll remove the foundation role from the infobox anyway, as three people objected in this thread, and nobody argued for its inclusion yet. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not "[object] to using a gendered word." I could not find where the position was gendered, so I "corrected" my own edit. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

heres a link

Fair enough, he is referenced as "Chairman." -- Sleyece (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

A writer?

Why is Trump not labeled a writer in the lead? Is it because that falls under his works as a businessman and politician? No need for any "support" or "oppose" comments, I am more interested in the reasons rather than in pushing for its inclusion in the lead.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick Well it is not as important as his other stuff - he's known for being a flashy businessman and being on television, not really for being a writer - like you said, it falls under being a businessman. Also, lot of the books are written by ghostwriters. Most importantly, I don't think RS describe him as a writer, but they do describe him as a businessman. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. My only reservation was that several of his books were successful. But they were business and political works. Thank you for your response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Donald Trump is a businessman, television personality, and politician..."

I'd like to suggest that the opening sentence of the article be changed to something along the lines of what I have written in the heading of this section. Although I understand that his role as the POTUS is probably the part of that sentence which is the most pertinent to his role in modern society, I would argue that since being President is a title, it's not what should appear as what he is. If you take a look at every other article for Presidents of the United States, they almost all read "... was/is a politician who served as the Nth President of the United States." For formatting purposes and for the purpose of consistency, I would argue that it would make sense to change it to say that he is a politician along with being a businessman and television personality.

As for his role as a businessman, he has not relinquished his role as owner of the Trump Organization and it still operates, therefore it would stand to reason that he could reasonably be considered an active businessman. Regarding him being a television personality, although that's not something that he could still be considered as currently pursuing, he still was once a television personality, just as Ronald Reagan was once an actor, and in Trump's case, I believe it would be correct to call him a television personality while omitting any specification that he no longer does it. Lastly, in terms of him being a politician, though he himself has distanced himself from the term, technically, whether or not he denies it, by definition, since he holds political office, he is a politician. Ergo, I think it would be reasonable to put that in the first sentence as opposed to simply that he is the President and following it up with what he once was, for formatting reasons and for logic reasons.

Benmite (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length. See [3] #17. O3000 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

O3000 beat me to it. I disagree with some of your points including the consistency argument (such arguments produce stagnation and stifle progress, and readers really don't get confused because the first sentences of articles about U.S. presidents are different). I don't feel a change is needed there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I also believe there is no reason to change the current wording of the first paragraph. The first sentence is generally what people see in search results, Google's Knowledge Graph and so on, and what they see first when reading the article. His role as President is vastly more important than his career managing his inherited wealth. The presidency is not the third or fourth most important thing about him, to the extent that we would exclude it from e.g. the Wikipedia snippet that appears in the Knowledge Graph by burying it at the end of the paragraph and force readers to read about relatively mediocre business and TV careers before even mentioning what he is primarily notable for. --Tataral (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: I agree that the President's role is vastly more important than Trump's business career. However, turning millions into billions is not simply "managing his inherited wealth". If you or I had gotten a kick-start of a couple thousand dollars from our parents and ended up with a few million 30 years later, I don't think anybody would say we were merely good managers of our inherited wealth. — JFG ^talk 16:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "managing his inherited wealth" Forbes have a self-made score on their profiles and Trump has a 5, which in the explaining article they say means "Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune". As far as I am aware that is the only reliable source measuring how self made someone is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Really, we have no idea either of his current wealth or of what part of it came from who what where when, etc. We have no idea how much of his personal life style is paid for out of personal wealth rather than by the investors in his enterprise who benefit from his public image. Let me tell you as an aside from personal knowledge that those Forbes numbers are not worth the paper they're printed on when the subject's wealth is not largely in a published form such as Microsoft shares, etc. It's mainly reality TV viewers who consider him a whiz at business. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The comment about him managing his inherited wealth referred to the fact that he did inherit a fairly large fortune for the era in question, and to reports that he would be richer today if he had simply invested that fortune in index funds during the past 30 years.[4] He also built his fortune/career primarily by continuing the business started by his father and grandmother. --Tataral (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this source, which says that Trump went from 1 billion to 4 billion since 1987 (+300%) but does not explain how he made his first billion between 1971 and 1987… all without Bitcoin! — JFG ^talk 01:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.

I don't see fascist, racist, white nationalist, Nazi, neoliberal, far-right, extremist. Seems Trump's Wikipedia page is depicting Trump in a positive light. AHC300 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Racism, white nationalism, and Nazism are more accurately described as ideological stances. Describing Trump as a fascist is like calling Obama a communist or FDR a dictator for earning a third term in office. Those terms do not accurately describe their actual political positions and display bias on your part. Criticism of Trump, however, does exist in this article and in others about him; to say anyone is depicting the President in a positive light is a far cry from the truth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed this several times before. The sentence is indeed clearly misleading and an outright falsification of what RS actually say. We should consider including some terms widely used by RS, especially far-right, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic, which are probably among the most widely used terms in RS. There has also been very extensive and serious discussion in RS over whether his political views can be described as fascist (see archives of this talk page for more/sources), so we should at the very least mention that in the body somewhere, although possibly not in the lead (many RS consider it a legitimate question, but conclude that he isn't a fascist for example, so it's better to discuss the issue in a little more nuanced way below). --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who cannot see how blatantly racist and how much of a white nationalist this joke for a president is, doesn't have their head on straight and is being selective of the information they chose to process surrounding his (bleep)show of a presidency. (Subzzee (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC))

Islamophobic seems reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the numerous prior debates and the currently stable wording, adding new labels to the lead section would best be handled via a RfC. — JFG ^talk 13:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. First you'd need 6 RfC's about the wording of the proposition. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this inevitably gets into irreconcilable views as to due weight in RS and it would be much more beneficial to our readers to concentrate on detailed article content and give the least consistent summary of it in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 13:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there are certain portions of the article that definitely need to be worked on, are missing, or need to be updated. Too much trouble to get anything changed Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Above all of your suggestions, conspiracy theorist should be added to that section- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69#Is_Trump_a_conspiracy_theorist?.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding any of those terms to describe Trume would be ridiculous. I'm not going to address all of them, but let's look at one. "Nazi" is a slang term for a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Unless you can produce a RS that say Trump was a member of that party at some point, then "Nazi" is out. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2017

In Personal Details, change "New York City" to "Richmond Hill, New York". Donald Trump was born in Jamaica Hospital in the borough of Queens. There is no such city as "New York City". There is New York which is the city designation for the borough of Manhattan. But Richmond Hill is the city designation for the portion of Queens where Trump was born. The zip code for the city of Richmond Hill is 11418. 207.237.81.84 (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Establish a consensus; this has been discussed before with consensus for New York City. Richmond Hill is a neighborhood and New York City is a city. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The consensus discussion is linked at #Current consensus item 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Archiving of live links

@Josve05a, Galobtter, and Bastun: The arbitration remedies read Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. I suggest that any discussion happens here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, was going to create a thread here. I don't think it's useful - all the links can be archived when they become dead as they already have an archive on archive.org. What point is in adding them now when they can be added at any time? Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

See e.g Gamergate controversy where we have archived all links, in case of future linkrot. Better be prepared in advance than in my opinion. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well all of these already have archival links on archive.org - they're just not linked, but those can be added as needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Other Stuff Exists is not a good enough argument for such a different article. This page has lots of reference and even exceeded the template limit, therefor the archiving of links is not as cheap as it is on other pages. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem I have with this is a bit different than download time. This article has 642 refs. It is heavily edited. 112,000 additional, not-easily readable characters, that serve no current purpose, adds to the difficulty in editing the article. O3000 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that was also what I was meaning with the additional size. Makes editing the refs and the article much harder. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur that systematic archiving is not useful, complicates editing, and obscures the few citations for which an archive is necessary. — JFG ^talk 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say it is useful in most cases. The complication to editing should no be the top priority but the reader experience. This article is watched by so many that any editor who would be put but the increased edit difficulty can be replaced by someone else. We should be thinking about what is most useful to the reader. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I complained about the same thing at the Village Pump, here, in October. That was when somebody did the same thing to Barack Obama, "archiving" 392 perfectly good references, and increasing the size of that already too-large article by 22%. I got nowhere. The people who think this is worth doing - or who like using the toy - don't care what it does to the size or readability of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I think there's a clear consensus against archiving every link, and if a person repeatedly violates that consensus after being informed of it, they should expect administrative intervention. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per JFG, MelanieN, etc, and in this case it's a 35% increase. I don't dispute the benefit, but cost exceeds benefit. This needs an entry at #Current consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I should have added: in the Barack Obama case, the person who did the archiving reverted at my request. Apparently we don't have to put up with this at articles where we think it is a problem, but I don't think we will get any kind of consensus against it on a Wiki-wide basis. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So there's clear consensus not to archive; while we'll simultaneously never achieve consensus to not archive. OK... Size is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper, and right now it's only 112k. Some (many) of the links will rot over time. Being prepared in advance is no hindrance to anyone (or if it is, nobody has explained why) and will be a net benefit to the reader over time. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It increases the article text a lot, making it much harder to edit - the problem of text being sandwiched between long refs increases. And there's absolutely nothing to be prepared for - the archives can always be added as needed when the links rot - when links break the archives can be added. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not increase the article text at all. It merely adds several parameters to references (which are only visible when editing). But whatevs, apparently some people think think this is a battle worth fighting... I'm not one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant the article code, as I was referring to editing not reading. As dead links come I'll add archives Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Section on his books

We mention his books in the lead and series of donald trump templates etc - yet there's not even a sentence on his books in the body. Per MOS we should try to harmonize the lead and body, so I'm thinking that a few sentences on the book for a section should be added somewhere.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Some paragraphs from the lead of Bibliography of Trump would be useful as a base, and it could be added to a writing and media career section.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also some content and comments relating to his ghostwriter collaborators may be suitable. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This seems backwards to me. I think the body should mention his books and the Lead should not. He's not exactly notable for writing books, and his most famous book at least was ghost written. ~Awilley (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah possibly.we can remove it. Or rather atleast talk a bit more about his business career..Either way will need to add a section on his books, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should remove the book mentions from the lead but add a section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented I created a short section on his books and removed it from the lead. The section on his books can be expanded. I'm not 100% about having the writing with the media, but I'm not sure where else to put it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That location seems fine and I certainly can't think of anything better at the moment. I'm not sure there's enough there to add "Writing and.." to the title of the parent section. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess writing is part of media, but I wouldn't think of it being there. I'll remove it for now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor for his role in Ghosts Can't Do It (1990)"

Listing this "award" among his organizational recognitions is irrelevant and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.55.169 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done [5] - If we don't consider the role worthy of a brief mention at Donald Trump#Acting and public image, surely the "award" isn't worth including either. Nobody claims that Trump can act. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

On the same vein, I removed two awards that weren't even notable enough to have articles of their own, nor were mentioned elsewhere in the body. We have a comment ""..and yet the hollywood walk of fame star is there. Frankly I don't even see the point of the whole section. Seems to be just for dumping random fluff that if important can be (and is) in the body. Obama, Bush, Clinton etc don't have such a section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing Entirety of Awards etc section

Creating another section so my proposal is more visible; I don't see the point of that section. The collar doesn't seem that important as numerous people get it etc. All the important stuff is mentioned earlier in the body. Is the gaming hall of fame important? Nah. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess the collar isn't given to everyone sort of..but if it's that important (which it doesn't seem to be) it can be mentioned in foreign policy in a saudi arabia section..Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The honorary degrees are not really important..the section can be split off into List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump similar to List of honors and awards received by Barack Obama Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I too had thought of splitting the section, but I realized that Trump is an awkward position. He has a big article, but I am not sure if he has enough awards for a new article. If we do spin off then I suggest we consider to reintroduce the removed awards. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Barack Obama's list isn't that much longer. Definitely think of reintroducing the removed awards. Considering how much coverage is there, I think I can write about how is honorary degrees were given then removed etc. Should be enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done It's a bit short, but it's undue here and there's enough coverage for a separate article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Russia stuff

I created Donald Trump#Investigations to organize the sections related to the Russia stuff etc into one section, instead of having things dumped in #Early Actions. However I can't really think of a good section title nor am I really happy with the section as it is now. Improvements definitely needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So I combined the sections on russia in the campaign, since they're all related in that the campaign ties are being investigated as part of russia's interference and his disbelief of any of the Russia stuff is part of why his interactions with russia have been so scrutinized. However a lot of stuff, while related to his campaign, are occurring/being investigated during his presidency and would fit more chronologically there, e.g Comey's testimony is reported there but also in the #Investigations section. Thinking of combining into one #Russia section in the presidency section..especially with Flynn etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea for the "Investigations" and "Russia" sections, thanks! — JFG ^talk 23:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WaPo possibly useful overview about Trump lying

Here [6]. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The author is a social scientist who has published extensively on the psychology of lying.", so they are a subject matter expert on lying, and not just some anti Trump journalist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't we have multiple lengthy discussion on this topic already? Also not sure an opinion column would be the best choice either. PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we had discussions that kind of felt like name-calling "liar" -- but this is an analytic look at it that may have some encyclopedic weight. As His Excellency says, this is an accredited social scientist, so this is a step in the right direction. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

We would have to be careful with current consensus #7 and #22. I do not dispute her credentials, but given her past publications she is not an unbiased source. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No. This is not science or analysis; it is opinion. I might almost call it, fake science. No reputable journal would look twice at a "study" like this. In the first place, she compares two totally different things - the self-reported frequency and motivation of lying in the case of her study subjects, vs. an external tally and evaluation of the truth or falsity of his statements in the case of Trump. In the second place, she defines a lie thus: “A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone.” She then admits, "In the case of Trump’s claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president’s intentions were." In other words, she has no valid measurement of Trump's lies (by her own definition), only of his false statements. We should stick with our current language: Falsehoods, yes. Lies, no. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Preceded by" Info Box

In the info box, under preceded by president it says "Barimpack Obama". Vinhan23 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

Change "Preceded by Barimpack Obama" to "Preceded by Barack Obama" OkAdamOkAdam (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh..refill changed that? Not sure how that got changed. Surprising it didn't get caught out for an entire hour considering the amount of watchers this page has.............. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh it's just me being an idiot..I ctrl+f "impeach" and thus must've accidently add "imp" to Barack. Seriously wonder how that wasn't caught earlier tho. Will check diffs before saving I guess. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Heapings of  Self-trout Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD notice

Editors are invited to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J. Trump Signature Collection. — JFG ^talk 00:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Political Positions Section

The political positions section seems redundant with the domestic and foreign policy sections, which describe his past positions and campaign promises in more detail. Thoughts on removing it/merging it in with them? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit messy. We should distinguish his positions as candidate from the actions of his administration. Some of the detailed policy articles have been split along these lines; certainly we don't need as much detail in the main bio. I would advocate waiting until "first year of the Trump presidency" reviews are published in RS, then we will be able to keep and summarize what is deemed important. — JFG ^talk 01:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..yeah, good idea, it's going to be pretty hard to write a good article until that happens. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

To add more info about Donald trump. 420meme (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

In his analysis of Donald Trump's electoral victory, sociologist Paul Joosse shows how Donald Trump's charismatic status was strengthened during the campaign through his rhetorical references to a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants. CMaterial (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

@CMaterial: where do you think it should go? Also the sentence seems overly fancy and doesn't seem to say much (though I think some more scholarly analyses might be useful in this article). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I think it should go in the Campaign Rhetoric section, since the academic article analyzed Trumps's campaign rhetoric. If the sentence is overly fancy, perhaps it could be changed to:

Sociologist Paul Joosse studied Trump's campaign rhetoric and found that Trump's charisma grew out of the moral panics he stoked about a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants.

Sources

@CMaterial: Interesting, but why should we enshrine the opinion of this particular sociologist into Trump's main biography? Surely there are hundreds of opinions about his rhetoric floating around; how is this one notable? — JFG ^talk 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —MRD2014 ^{Happy Holidays!} 01:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's notable because it isn't an "opinion floating around"--it is a peer-reviewed study based on 672 pages of collected data from transcripts of all the GOP debates, the debates with Clinton, as well as 20 speeches from campaign rallies. This material was coded using NVivo software to generate the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMaterial (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I would approve adding the text, based on your second wording. Let's see what other editors think. — JFG ^talk 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval. Is there a way to draw the attention of other editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMaterial (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is interesting but it's one opinion among many and there are many other widely-reported factors it does not address. For our limited article space, we need to stick to high-level overriding facts and characterizations, and I think that putting this one in the article would open the door to 20 other equally valid observations that would go too far afield. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert of Trump revenue information

This revert [7] removes information sourced from secondary reporting on official documents. The edit summary claims that the RS citation is "dubious" while Trump's own notoriously inflated claims apparently are not?? What? This is gratuitous removal of well-sourced article content and should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The original source is crain's new york business; this hasn't been picked up, as far as I can see, by any major sources other than the independent and the huffington post. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Where does the article mention the "notoriously inflated claims"? AFAICT, that was removed in the same edit. 2. I noticed that The Independent referred to the organization's revenue as what it is "worth". Unless I'm mistaken, that can mean multiple things, but revenue isn't one of them. They may be reporting accurately otherwise, but it doesn't make them look very good as a source of financial information. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, if this information is accurate, it would also be undue here and should belong in the The Trump Organization article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The citation and reverted text improperly compared The Trump Organization's annual revenue to Trump's claimed net worth. Of course tabloid reporters shouldn't let Accounting 101 get in the way of sensationalist headlines… — JFG ^talk 10:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

More accurate and informative edit summaries obviate needless reverts and/or discussion. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

I disagree with this edit to the lead. It changed “he...responded to North Korean nuclear weapons and missile advancements” to “he...escalated rhetoric with North Korea”. The US response has not been rhetoric alone, but also included increased economic sanctions, plus military show of force, so just saying rhetoric is misleading. And the escalation on the US side has corresponded to escalating missile and nuclear tests on the NK side, so it’s inaccurate to suggest that the escalation is from the US side. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump both escalated the rhetoric (as did Kim) and responded to missile and nuclear developments (clearly an area where North Korea accelerated in 2017, see List of North Korean missile tests). Therefore I would phrase it as "…responded to North Korea's acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program. We can leave the bellicose rhetoric aside (from both sides). — JFG ^talk 01:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be okay. Saying that a politician engaged in rhetoric is not lead-worthy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that bellicose rhetoric is the major component of Trump's response, at least insofar as it is publicly known. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus a bunch of aircraft carriers, joint military exercises, tightened economic sanctions, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

All those plus don't add up to anything. Major RS discussion of his lack of strategy or tactical response. Ships are nothing new and no "response". SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rhetoric is a response. It may be an ineffectual response but it’s still a response. Same for aircraft carriers and the rest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Noop. Otherwise the article would also mention how he tied his shoes last Thursday and the Metroliner ran on time 2 days last week. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you insist on the lead saying “rhetoric”? You think rhetoric is way more important than tying his shoes? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't. I do. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You did put rhetoric back in. Why is rhetoric so much more important to you than other forms of response? Because you want readers to think that he’s only engaged in the weakest possible form of response? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No personal remarks please. You can come insult me on my talk page anytime and say anythingyouwant. I reverted a bad edit to the less bad preexisting condition. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I added that statement in, and I phrased it as rhetoric because that's all Donald Trump#North Korea talks about and that's the only major thing I remember to be covered. If the sanctions are important, then it can be phrased as "escalated sanctions against North Korea in response to missile developments." and also covered in that section. This article phrases it as "standoff with Pyongyang continues to escalate." and "provocative rhetoric and suggestions of considering a "preventative war" have raised concerns that he may be more willing to engage in a conflict on the Korean peninsula than past presidents." - the rhetoric seems important to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The provocative rhetoric also seems notable to me...I remember "Little Rocket Man" making headlines not so long ago. ~Awilley (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah and over months too..little rocket man but also the red line comment and what not. Here's another wapo article on how his comments "threatened genocide" and another that says "North Korea’s words are the same. It’s Trump’s reaction that makes this different." and "problem now is Mr. Trump. He reacts, he answers, he tweets, so he’s making it visible". Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree the rhetoric is significant. The word “response” is broad enough to include rhetoric plus sanctions plus three aircraft carriers and military exercises with Japan and South Korea. All that is covered by the word “response”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but with that version, it doesn't say much. "he...responded"..okay he responded. For all you know he responded by being nicer to North Korea, by trying to placate them. What about "increased hostility against North Korea"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to characterize the response, okay, but it would be better to say something like “increased pressure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

So the current proposal is to say he “pressured North Korea to reverse the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense to "reverse the acceleration". I changed it to "[He] pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their […]". — JFG ^talk 10:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clearer. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "pressured" is vague and weaselly. We can convey much more of the meaning of our sources by saying, "He mocked and threatened..." which is (1) what they report that he did and (2) what differentiates Pres. Trump's approach from the approaches of his various predecessors. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Do agree that mocked and threatened explains how it is different from predecessors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the current language in the lead including the word "pressure" which is much broader than mere rhetoric. The word "pressure" is firmly supported by sources, such as these (emphasis added):

• Calamur, Krishnadev. “Pressure North Korea, Antagonize China”, The Atlantic (December 1, 2017).
• Restuccia, Andrew. “Trump gets ready to 'maximize pressure' on North Korea”, Politico (November 5, 2017).
• DeYoung, Karen at al. “Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea”, Washington Post (September 30, 2017).
• Wolfsthal, Jon and Denmark, Abraham. “Will South Korea’s New President Foil Trump’s Attempt to Pressure North Korea?”, Foreign Policy (May 11, 2017).
• Osnos, Evan. “Why China Won’t Pressure North Korea as Much as Trump Wants”, The New Yorker (September 19, 2017).
• Holland, Steve. “Trump expected to pressure China's Xi to rein in North Korea: officials”, Reuters (October 20, 2017).
• Moore, Mark. “Trump to ask Xi to ratchet up pressure on North Korea”, New York Post (November 8, 2017).
• Schearf, Daniel. “US Sanctions, Terror Designation Increase Pressure on North Korea”, VOA News (November 22, 2017).
  

Details about the pressure are best left for the article body, not the lead, because there are so many forms of pressure (economic, rhetorical, military, etc.). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, this proves the point Galobtter and I are making, your argument "there are so many forms of pressure (economic, rhetorical, military, etc.)" is the reason why, when a simple concise lede-worthy characterization is available, we should use the more meaningful "mocked and threatened" which will not strain our servers as it uses only a handful more bits. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"mocked and threatened" excludes all the other forms of pressure which arguably are just as effective and noteworthy, if not more so. "mocked and threatened" leaves the impression that Trump is all hot air. I don't dispute that Trump has employed hot air, but that's not all he has employed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No hot air intended, my friend. RS tell us that the dominant strategy of the administration has been mock and threaten. It's not shock and awe anymore. Now, for all we know this is just a ruse to save face for the NKoreans while surrender negotiations are underway per "Art of the Deal" but the WP:WEIGHT of RS reports do not indicate anything of significance beyond bluster. In fact, there's considerable coverage of the failure of the Chinese and others to join us in promoting meaningful pressure of any kind, e.g. regime-threatening economic sanctions, credible military threats, strategy-nullifying air defenses, or other steps. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The RS that I listed above tell us that the overall strategy of the administration is "pressure" which includes many forms including rhetoric. Trump himself told Tillerson that Trump views rhetoric as the least likely form of pressure to succeed (he said Tillerson was "wasting his time"), and RS don't disagree with that AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

which includes many forms - your words, and you're using that to justify weasel text to save 76 bits of data on the server? C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing to change "pressure" in the lead to "mocking and threatening" or are your instead proposing to change "pressure" in the lead to "pressure that has included mocking and threatening"? If we have to do one or the other, I would the latter, because it indicates that there have been various forms of pressure, not just mocking and threatening. Also, I think "rhetoric" would sound a lot more neutral than "mocking and threatening". Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything, that's truly a novel argument (kudos), and it's one that thoroughly denies core Wikipedia policy. Vague weasel language is not considered "more neutral" than concise specific words supported by the weight of RS references. As you may have missed, I have already proposed "the former" above, for reasons amply detailed. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you 're proposing that the lead should only refer to "mocking and threatening" North Korea, and should not even spend 76 bits of data alluding to other forms of pressure that have gotten a ton of press (some listed above), then I strongly oppose your suggestion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody supports you. Policy does not and so... SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy is to follow reliable sources, not to ignore all the sources you don't like. For example, there are tons and tons of RS referring to Trump's efforts to pressure North Korea via China. I've already listed a bunch of sources above that discuss pressure beyond "mocking and threatening". Let's kick back and see what others have to say here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

🍒picking is not policy...🙊🍌

SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The mocking is more on Kim Jong-un than north korea; pressure seems reasonable considering his efforts with China. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you specify what efforts RS describe wrt China? Certainly not lede-worthy ones. What is his overall approach? It is mocking and threatening full stop. RS tell us that the threats are nonsense due to NK's hardened ability to obliterate millions of South Koreans. There's extensive RS coverage that details why POTUS "threats" are meaningless and why such "threats" were never made by Bush, Obama, Clinton, et al. There's also extensive mainstream RS reporting about the extraordinary risks and dangers of Trump's actions wrt North Korea, which on the whole are reported not as effective pressure but rather as provocation and puffery. I recall reporting about POTUS rhetoric concerning China but no consensus of RS that calls his China stuff as rising to the level of "effort." SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See above: [1] Osnos, Evan. “Why China Won’t Pressure North Korea as Much as Trump Wants”, The New Yorker (September 19, 2017); [2] Holland, Steve. “Trump expected to pressure China's Xi to rein in North Korea: officials”, Reuters (October 20, 2017); [3] Moore, Mark. “Trump to ask Xi to ratchet up pressure on North Korea”, New York Post (November 8, 2017). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And more: In Beijing, Trump presses China on North Korea and trade. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

All of which supports my point, thank you very much. In light of these reports, saying POTUS "pressured" China is like saying Obama "pressured" Newt Gingrich to support a single-payer healthcare system, or that God "pressured" us to follow His commandments.

Come to think of it, both those examples are more plausible. There was at least some possibility that they would be effective. Maybe a better analogy would be my grandson "pressuring" the dog to do his chores for him. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The above discussion is running around in circles, chasing its own tail (so much for dog analogies). If any of the editors involved would like to suggest a particularly insightful change of wording, they are free to open an RfC. — JFG ^talk 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I already furnished great wording. Some of the best wording ever, and only Anythingyouwant is trying (with little success) to oppose it. Instead of telling others what to do, could you evaluate and offer a constructive opinion on the alternative proposed wordings above? SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you telling him to evaluate and offer a constructive opinion? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the wording currently in the article, viz. [he] pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program, is good enough. Other proposal are either too long for the lede or focusing only on the rhetorical pressure. This article's body and the linked articles about the NoKo situation have all that readers may wish to learn. — JFG ^talk 00:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's basically a denial of the issues that have been discussed here, so I take that as an abstention. Noted. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I made my position clear; sorry if you are not satisfied with it. Not denying that issues are being debated, you can read my prior comments on that topic, and I also contributed to formulating the current text, after taking remarks from other editors into account. — JFG ^talk 03:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Presidency of Donald Trump says "In August Trump significantly escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, saying that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen". It also mentions ineffectual requests to China and Tillerson's apparent attempt at diplomacy. In light of this, with respect to Trump himself for this bio article, the following language seems appropriate and is amply justified per the discussion above.

"He escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, threatening to destroy it."

This seems consistent both with the Presidency article and with the comments in this thread. I will wait a bit before inserting it. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this language for the reasons already described in this section, and I don't see any consensus for it either. The consensus above, in which I and JFG and Golobtter concurred, seems pretty clear. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I waited a day before putting this in so that anyone could object, and you wait to object until after it's in the article? And you restore your version without consensus to boot? And you speak for others to support your actions. Not following. Maybe you should start an RfC to nail it down. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Less than 20 hours is not a day, unless you're on Jupiter (10 hours), Saturn (11 hours), Uranus (17 hours), or Neptune (16 hours), and the immediately-preceding subsection above speaks for itself. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a systemic Earth bias. We should give equal consideration to English-speaking readers on all planets. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Amending consensus #23

Following recent developments, the lede sentence about the travel ban was changed by several editors, including myself. As the new text has now been stable for a while, could we possibly formally obtain consensus to amend item #23?

• Previous text: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after legal challenges.
• New text: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.

The new text concisely reflects the current situation, after the Supreme Court allowed full implementation of the third version of the travel ban, as defined in Presidential Proclamation 9645 (linked from the text as well).

Clarification: The Supreme Court still has to rule on the merits, possibly some time next year, but it has ruled 7-2 to allow immediate full implementation of the latest version of the ban. — JFG ^talk 12:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with amending consensus wording #23 as described. — JFG ^talk 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• agree The wording is more accurate, but not perfectly I'd like. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree - No improvement over the old wording. See my rationale in the discussion section. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: The previous wording is now inaccurate, inasmuch as it qualifies the ban as "partially implemented" despite it being now fully implemented as amended. Specifying that a "revised ban" came into effect also increases clarity. Which alternative formulation would you suggest? — JFG ^talk 12:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's still more accurate - hardly "no improvement", no major improvement but still better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The "revised ban" is no longer ledeworthy, so it should be removed. Only the first bit is relevant to the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree This is a back-door insinuation of the POV that was rejected in a lengthy talk page discussion here. No need to rehash all that. Wait until the judicial reviews have run their course, then it will be easy to achieve consensus. The matter is still in the appeals courts. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• agree somewhat in that the new wording is better, but I do think it's unclear in that the only countries on the ban aren't all Muslim majority. With the revised ban, there are other countries on the list. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• agree, it’s not a big change, but it never hurts to be slightly more accurate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• New Suggested sentence He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several countries, including several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not after the challenges. They are ongoing. You could say "amid ongoing legal challenges". SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agree Not seeing what the fuss is about if it reflects the current reality of the status of the travel ban. Articles are ever-changing and I don't think we should wait for this or hhat decision to come around. Write about how it is now, then change it when the real-life events change. ValarianB (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree reflects current reality. I admit that perhaps it doesn't belong in the lede of this article at all IMHO because of it being to my eyes clearly overbalanced toward his presidency over the preceeding 98% of his life, but if it is going to be included it should be currently accurate. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding that, I think rather the paragraph on the previous portion of his life, such as his real estate career, can be expanded - there's clearly room for that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

But even expanding that one paragraph while keeping maybe three paragraphs about what is basically one year of the subject's life wouldn't necessarily remove the overbalance in the lede. So far as I remember as per WP:LEAD the lede generally shouldn't be more than four paragraphs long. On that basis, and particularly considering his presidency already has a separate article, I think the first priority maybe should be getting the lead of this, the main biography of the subject, conform to basic policies and guidelines, and leave adding to the lead until later. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Weak agree - both seem sort of OK but I also think it a bit much detail. But expect it may get compressed was time and events appear and wind up like other presidents -- just the title of just the major bills. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree that it needs to be changed, but I think something along the lines of what MelanieN suggested would be better than what is currently proposed. (Her suggest below was "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after multiple court orders blocked implementation, the Supreme Court allowed a revised version of the ban to go into effect in December 2017.") ~Awilley (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, is there a way to phrase that to only mention SCOTUS but not lower courts (which really don’t matter much in the final analysis)? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There probably is, but it's late and I have more pressing demands on my time at the moment. ~Awilley (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Your proposal is very precise but awfully long for the lead section of Trump's bio. The travel ban should not occupy 25% of the paragraph summarizing Trump's first year in office. Even my amended version is excessively long imho. I'd be fine with just this: He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which only came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges. — JFG ^talk 11:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove the only - not sure why it's there: He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges. I'd support that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll put it up for consensus in a new section. — JFG ^talk 12:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey 2

Shorter proposal, from suggestions above:

He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.

Agree? Disagree? — JFG ^talk 12:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Agree "due to legal challenges" covers both the amendments made by the administration in response and the initial partial implementation allowed by the SCOTUS. I'd support any reasonable rewording of the first clause or if it people want it to remain the same as what it is currently. My thinking is perhaps He ordered a travel ban for certain Muslim-majority countries ("for" seems the correct preposition looking at this article.) Galobtter (pingó mió) JFG IMHO "for certain Muslim-majority countries" is clearer and has better grammar than "on certain Muslim countries". If you agree you can just change the proposal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Changing to weak, see my comment in discussion - while some of what Scjessey says is a little much, his general idea that the later travel bans had less coverage seems correct. This is better than the current version though, so weak agree. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree - It did not come into effect! He proposed a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, it caused a massive furore and the courts rejected it. That's the ledeworthy bit. After that, he was forced to propose a travel ban of certain countries that included some non-Muslim countries (North Korea and Venezuela). That part isn't ledeworthy, because it is essentially an entirely new (and far less controversial) executive order that is pointedly not based on religion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Lower courts put injunctions and the SCOTUS partially allowed the march travel ban. Definitely can't say "the courts rejected it". Maybe temporarily blocked.. And I don't think it is definitive that the latest version was not based on religion - perhaps they were added just to lessen legal challenges, like how the january travel ban was "watered-down" in the march version. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The courts rejected the ban as originally conceived. It was that version of the ban that led to demonstrations, etc. It was that version of the ban that was noteworthy enough to make it into the lede. The subsequent revisions and watering downs have attracted far less mainstream media coverage and very little in the way of public demonstration, and are thus not ledeworthy (although they obviously need coverage in the body of the article). The lede should only be reserved for the most important, noteworthy stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The legal challenges aren't over - the supreme court still has to hear them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

True. The ban still needs Federal court approval. But more to the point, the ban has been altered to include two non-Muslim-majority countries (North Korea and Venezuela), which means the text is misleading. The noteworthy part of the text is everything preceding the semicolon, and I think the bit about legal challenges should now be removed. The original ban is the ledeworthy part, not the legal challenges and changes that took place afterwards. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we discuss that separately - just get this minor change which corrects a error in the previous wording agreed on, and then discuss your proposal (which I might agree with) later/or in a separate section Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No. The new wording is no good. The only acceptable solution is to simply leave off the bit after the semicolon. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

First off, let's deal with the essence of this bit and why it's noteworthy. It's a key campaign tag "Muslim Ban". Well the courts blocked a ban based on religion and so for the better part of a year, RS tell us, we have the Administration doing anything it takes to avoid having the whole kaboodle quashed. The central point is not that this is a security policy that was tweaked to get it humming. Reporting describes it as a propaganda ploy that nearly resulted in humiliation for the Administration and is being rejiggered to avoid that outcome. WP cannot adopt political talking-points as factual description. If we insist on cleanup here, we could say "he ordered a "travel ban" that was blocked by the courts for its unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion and which is under ongoing judicial review." Or something. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And yet SCOTUS has ruled several times that the ban is legal. The question is to what extent. It's quite clear from the law that the President has the authority and that's why 7 justices refused in the latest filing to issue a stay Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? AFAIK, SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that the ban is legal. They did agree to allow the latest version (was it version 3.0? or 4.0?) to go into effect while legal challenges proceed. I don't believe they have ever said that any version is legal on its merits. Do you have evidence to the contrary? --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Joseph, Sir, that is a misstatement of fact. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, further to MelanieN's statement, injunctive relief in the USA needs to meet quite a strict standard, so failing to enjoin an action is nowhere near adjudicating the matter in favor of its legality. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Didn't they rule about people connected to Americans? That is why Trump redid the EO to specify that it applies to those without a connection. The most recent ruling by SCOTUS was not the first time it came to SCOTUS. In any event, most legal scholars opine that the ban is 100% legal, whether you agree or not, is a separate issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I am a legal scholar and I'm disagreeing. 👵 - needs RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is all original research and beside the point. We need to be talking about the language to go in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. I'm not aware of wide RS reports that the travel ban was ruled legal by any court. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN FWIW, USNews.com said the SCOTUS ruling as "The Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order banning travel from eight countries – six of which are Muslim-majority – can go fully into effect, handing the administration a victory on the issue even as legal challenges against the order continue to wind through lower courts." That seems way too much for the lead. Think the new version is reasonable, but even that could easily cut the details about intermediate steps and just be "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from eight countries, citing security concerns." and let the details be somewhere not the lead. Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reuters has - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts. - which uses allowing instead of ruling, which I'd say is more accurate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett, ruling that it may take effect while the legal challenges are being adjudicated is not the same as a ruling that the order is legal and may be implemented. SCOTUS chose not to sustain the injunctive relief granted by the courts of appeals. None of these was a definitive ruling as to the legality of the order. SCOTUS has issued no ruling on the merits. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO MelanieN was asking about what they ruled, which I provided -- that it could take effect. And for a BLP lead wording we can just cut to the chase 'he ordered a travel ban' and let details be elsewhere. Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett, if you're suggesting we simply remove "a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges", I think that's OK for now. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither version really covers it. It does need to be in the lede, it is one of his signature issues. But there is so much that needs to be said about this, it's hard to fit into a sentence. We need to retain "Muslim-majority" even though the final ban included a couple of non-Muslim-majority countries (in an obvious bid to get past the religious-discrimination issue). We need to say there were multiple court challenges, multiple court orders blocking it, and multiple revisions. I think we should indicate that it took a full year before they finally came up with a version the Court would accept. How about something like this: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after multiple court orders blocked implementation, the Supreme Court allowed a revised version of the ban to go into effect in December 2017. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN - I'll suggest the LEAD be a lot less per WP:LEAD and WP:BLPLEAD, to about one paragraph that simply lists the major elements, similar to Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton. If we spend 3 lines for each event it would get overwhelming. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? The lead in Barack obama spents a whole two paragraphs (long ones too) - about 3 times as much on his presidency. There's actually reasonable space for a bit of expansion.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Melanie's suggestion, I'd be hesitant to refer in the lead to lower court decisions given that SCOTUS addressed the matter more than once. So, I'm okay with JFG's suggestion. If Melanie wants to revise her version so that it only refers to SCOTUS decisions then I'd consider that too. Did SCOTUS ever block implementation? I don't recall they did. Incidentally, I think the length of the lead is about right as is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it. Only overturning injunctions. It did partially block the March travel ban, so that people with a bona fide relationship cannot be denied. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think SCOTUS has twice acted on the matter without a final ruling, so if we refer in the lead to court action, we should be referring to that SCOTUS stuff rather than lower court rulings IMHO. I think the way JFG phrased it is an improvement, and am not sure Melanie's version would improve it any further. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter no, Obama puts four major events per one line, not four lines per one event. ACA, Dodd-Frank, Don’t ask, and Consumer protection all get just named ... not a multi line description of steps. That is what a BLP LEAD should be — a short summary of the life will only name the big items of the presidency, and any details are elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, what about He ordered a controversial travel ban for several Muslim-majority countries., which is like what Scjessey is saying. I do get that the later travel bans haven't received nearly as much coverage. Represent the challenges, protests using "controversy". RS call it controversial too, and "after months of controversy" etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) The only problem is being misleading, in that the original did not go through. So IDK Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway

There´s a disagreement about if Conways controversies should be mentioned in the lead of her article at the thread ""sitting inappropriately on the Oval Office couch" in the Lead" on Talk:Kellyanne Conway. If anyone is interested, some more opinions couldn´t hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2017

Hello, I want to edit this page to fix up a couple of errors on his family. I also found some spelling and grammar mistakes I think I should fix up to make this page look better.

Thanks. Djdjdd (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the place for getting permission to edit the article. You have to propose specific changes e.g fix spelling of "helo" and someone else with the permission will edit it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Djdjdd: Also, we have seen examples of your handiwork [8][9][10] and we are not interested in seeing you make similarly unconstructive contributions here. The article is protected for a reason. General Ization ^Talk 05:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 not even mentioned in the article?

This is Trump's only major piece of legislation that he managed to get passed through Congress in his first year. This should be in the lede, yet it isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't been signed yet. When it is, I would expect it to go into Presidency of Donald Trump. O3000 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So far it is being described as the largest tax overhaul in 30 years. As well as his only legislative achievement to date. PackMecEng (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it should be mentioned in the lede of this article. And it also repealed the Obamacare health insurance mandate. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Now mentioned in the "Economy and trade" section and in the lead. — JFG ^talk 10:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

suggestion for citation needed

i would like to sugest a citation needed please, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.136.26 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. What, where? — JFG ^talk 10:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

English style and diction

Could we please not weasel-up this article with sentences that lack a subject and digress into labyrinthine passive-voice excursions?

DA

• The media subjected Trump's Russian connections to intense scrutiny
• The media intensely scrutinized Trump's connections to Russia

NYET

• There has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia
• Trump's connections to Russia were intensely scrutinized by the media

SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Both of your nyets have a subject, neither present a reading comprehension problem, neither sounds awkward or unnatural to my ear, let alone labyrinthine, and despite popular myth passive voice is not something to be avoided like the plague, see English passive voice#Advice against the passive voice. That said, you probably wouldn't get reverted if you just changed it to your preference, provided the result wasn't less readable or less natural sounding. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. "There" is not a descriptive subject. But at any rate, it's not a good idea to write in the passive voice in an encyclopedia. It's already been reverted and made more vague and less clear English, but this will be for future editors to improve. Poorly worded and weaselly language may be the result either of POV-pushing, of incompetence, or of non-native English speakers doing their best. In the long run these things will be corrected to intelligible and reasonably correct English, either Yankee Doodle or HMS style. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But at any rate, it's not a good idea to write in the passive voice in an encyclopedia. - You have provided exactly zero support for such a blanket statement, and it is contrary to the information I linked above. Even if you were a recognized writing expert, and I'm not aware that's the case, your opinion would be one of many varying opinions among recognized writing experts. I reserve the right to use passive voice when it seems more natural to my ear, improves flow, and so on, and I encourage other editors to do the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear friend, thanks for your many contributions to this encyclopedia. That sentence was bad. Somebody will fix it. No need to dwell on it. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed the unwieldy There has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia to the more palatable Trump's connections to Russia were intensely scrutinized by the media.[11] Passive voice can be just as clear as active voice, depending on what the writer wants to emphasize. In this sentence, I felt that the key element was Trump's connections to Russia, not "the media", leading to a passive turn of phrase. — JFG ^talk 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No need to feel defensive. Somebody will fix it. The point is that clear direct English promotes NPOV and sodden wording tends to promote POV and needless expenditures of editor time and discussion. The bad language is back again, but somebody will fix it. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

To his credit, JFG has more patience than I do. Please stop speaking as if your viewpoint is indisputable fact, given that it has been disputed by both me and JFG (neither of us slouches when it comes to writing). I provided a link to the relevant part of a Wikipedia article, JFG provided cogent reasoning, and you've brought nothing but unsupported proclamations about weaselly language and sodden wording (it might be considered weaselly if "by the media" were omitted, but it was not omitted and that has nothing to do with passive vs active voice). If passive voice were to be avoided at Wikipedia, you can be sure there would be a guideline; no such guideline exists. If somebody "fixes it", I may well fix it back. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, please do not take this discussion as a personal affront. I'm not aware of who wrote which whatever, but I surmise that your pride of authorship may be on the line here. No slight intended. I'm not particularly familiar with your writing style or edits, and I have no opinion as to anything other than the matter I raised above. I'm sure JFG would not hesitate to speak for himself if the urge arose, and it doesn't seem like he took anything personally. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You surmise incorrectly, which is the problem with surmising; this has nothing to do with anything I've written. It's about an editor attempting to establish a local guideline discouraging use of passive voice, based on nothing but their misinformed opinion, and refusing to drop the stick when that's made crystal clear to them. If you want to propose a site guideline, do it in an RfC at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. That will be a waste of your time and the community's time, since it could never pass, but it's at least correct process. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's way beyond anything I've said. I'm not trying to establish guidelines or anything at all. Just stated my opinion and expressed confidence that, since I will not engage in an edit war over poorly-written prose, some other editor(s) will improve the wording. Th.th.th.that's all folks. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act in the lead

Regarding this revert, I don't think it's accurate to say in the lead that he has been "unsuccessful" in repealing the ACA. He just got a significant part of it repealed, namely the individual mandate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that takes care of it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Feel free to update the Health care section with recent information on the repeal efforts. — JFG ^talk 12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to mention the ACA in the lead at all, but it's now clearly inaccurate to say (without clarification) he's been unsuccessful at repealing it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)