Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

BLP violation in lede

This edit restored content which is no longer accurate (and replaced content which is accurate). The body of the article currently states:

Trump later modified his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies. Trump has said that the ban would be lifted once the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

Also, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the content should NOT have been restored unless/until there was consensus to do so in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? In what POSSIBLE sense is this a BLP violation? Let's not throw that accusation around unless it has some basis in reality. As for the possible wording, we have two choices at the moment: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (the current wording) and "a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists."(the previous and your preferred wording). I don't see any way that we can gloss over his frequently repeated insistence on banning Muslims, even if he did later modify it by saying "from terrorist countries". (In fact when he first said it he even said the ban would apply to American citizens who were Muslim, although he quickly retracted that.) And his ban was never just on "immigration", it was on entering the country at all - as tourists, as foreign dignitaries, students, whatever. The "terrorist countries" comment in June did not revoke the Muslim ban, it expanded on it, as per the NPR source: "Responding to the Orlando shootings in a New Hampshire speech Monday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the appearance to expand on his previous call to temporarily ban all Muslims from immigrating to the United States." The fact that he specified "from terrorist countries" did not in any way erase his previous and never-retracted ban on "Muslims". The whole history - ban and expansion - is spelled out in the text. If you think the modification is so important it has to go in the lede, how about something like this: "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Melanie basically covers it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That sentence in the lede begins with "His platform includes...." It's intended to reflect his current positions. The following reliable sources all indicate that he changed his stance from temporarily banning Muslims to temporarily banning people from countries with a history of terrorist activity:

Trump Shifts Muslim Ban to Focus on Only 'Terrorist' Nations (ABC News)

Donald Trump's shifting positions on Muslim ban (CNN)

Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal? (CSM

Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban? (CBS News)

Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism' (The Hill)CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the edit I referenced is a BLP violation because WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE indicates that:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

This was clearly not adhered to in this case.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Every one of those citations makes it clear that 1) he is still talking about MUSLIMS, particularly those from terrorist countries - not Christians or Jews or atheists from those countries, just Muslims; and 2) he has not withdrawn his proposed ban on all Muslims; the closest he has come was a comment that a Scottish Muslim "wouldn't bother me". His spokespeople, trying to explain what he said, were all over the map, ranging from "it's about Muslims from countries that support terrorism" to "nothing has changed." Trump himself, as recently as June 25, "declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims."[1] So there's really no evidence that he has withdrawn his repeated call for a "shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." At most, he recently said that his ban is not ironclad and that people coming from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted". So as I proposed above, we could say "particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism". But there is no way we can say or imply that he has withdrawn his platform to ban Muslims from entering the country. The sources, and Trump himself, simply do not support that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and Volunteer Marek on this point. The lead is a summary — it is not meant to reflect ever single variation in phrasing. As VM notes, Trump has never retracted his previous proposed "ban on Muslims." Neutrality^talk 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Excerpts from sources provided above:

Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign. In interviews at his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, Trump went further, saying that the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." - ABC News (6/25/16)

Trump also indicated on Saturday that his ban is not ironclad and declined to answer directly in an interview with CNN whether his ban would extend to all foreign Muslims.

Instead, Trump emphasized that Muslims from states with heavy terrorist activity would be "very strongly" vetted and suggested that the U.S. would more closely scrutinize all individuals seeking to enter the country. He also told the Daily Mail that individuals from "terror countries" would be "even more severely vetted" but could ultimately be allowed entry into the country. "People coming from the terror states -- and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states -- we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump told CNN after touring his golf course here. Trump also focused on the need to ban individuals from "terrorist countries" in an interview later Saturday with Bloomberg Politics.

"I want terrorists out. I want people that have bad thoughts out. I would limit specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are," Trump said, again not specifying which countries would be included. - CNN (6/25/16)

The presumptive Republican nominee would now ban Muslims only from “terror” countries, he told the Daily Mail on the 18th hole of his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, while he urged several golfers to play through the hole. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted," he said, according to NBC News. - CSM (6/26/16)

When CBS News asked Trump, on a tour of his Aberdeen golf course, whether he would allow Muslims from Scotland or Great Britain into the U.S., Trump shook his head.

That "wouldn't bother me," the billionaire responded.

It seemed to be a softening of Trump's initial call, made in December, for a "total and complete shutdown" of all Muslims attempting to step foot on U.S. soil. - CBS (6/25/16)

Trump told reporters that it "wouldn't bother" him if a Muslim immigrated to the U.S. from a country like Scotland.

Then, in an interview with the DailyMail.com, he seemed to expand on a shift away from focusing on religion toward a country-specific policy. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee seemed to say that he may allow Muslim immigrants from certain "terror countries" after applying extra scrutiny.

"I don't want people coming in — I don't want people coming in from certain countries," Trump told the Daily Mail. "I don't want people coming in from the terror countries. You have terror countries! I don't want them, unless they're very, very strongly vetted.

"People coming from the terror states — and you know who I'm talking about when I talk about the terror states — we are going to be so vigilant you wouldn't believe it and frankly a lot will be banned," Trump later told CNN. - The Hill (6/25/16)

It's pretty clear that Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer. So to say that in the lead to his bio is inaccurate. Instead I think we could say something like:

His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (later changed to people from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your quotes are the exact same ones I was referring to, when I said he has not retracted his proposal to ban all Muslims, and that his proposal to ban "people" from terrorist countries refers to Muslims from those countries (as verified by his spokesperson). And his proposal was not later "changed", it was maybe "refocused". I have deleted the reference to non-interventionist from the sentence, per talk below. I think we are close to agreement. How about something like:

His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

Personally I prefer the wording I proposed above - "a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims, particularly those from countries with a proven history of terrorism, from entering the United States until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists" - over the version with the parentheses, but I won't insist on it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It may be "pretty clear" to you that "Trump is not referring to banning all foreign Muslims any longer" - but it was not clear to the authors of these references (note the headlines "Did Donald Trump just soften his Muslim ban proposal?"and "Has Donald Trump lifted his Muslim ban?"), or to Trump's spokespeople, or even to Trump himself, who refused to reply to a direct question on that subject - as I pointed out above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN OK. It looks like your proposal in talkquotes above is as close as we're going to get to a reasonable outcome. Let's do it.CFredkin (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've compiled the most relevant passages from the four most mainstream English-language news media, as measured by circulation.

1. BBC News: 'Orlando justifies my Muslim ban', says Trump (June 14, 2016).

Here are five key lines from his speech – and what they could mean.

[1.] "... I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."

... Trump provided some additional details about the temporary Muslim ban that he proposed ... in December. First of all, it may not be a Muslim ban at this point. In his speech he simply referred to closing the borders to nations that "have a history of terrorism" against the US and its allies...

2. AP: In his words: Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban (June 28, 2016).

June 24–25, 2016: ... At one point Trump tells reporters that he'd be fine with Muslims from Scotland or the U.K. coming to the U.S.  Trump later takes to Twitter to offer a clarification: "We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place."

3. Reuters: After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims (June 14, 2016).

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee ... propos[ed] that the United States suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism."

4. WSJ: Donald Trump back-pedals on banning Muslims from U.S. (June 28, 2016).

Donald Trump appears to be backing away from one of his ... proposals—banning Muslims from entering the U.S.... Since ... May ... he has gradually moved away from a blanket religious ban and toward a more nuanced policy targeting countries with a record of terrorism.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, are you OK with the wording in the last set of talk-quotes above? --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the above, MelanieN! According to BBC News and other top-ranked authorities, Trump is currently indicating he would not ban persons based on religion. Rather, he's openly saying he would ban persons based on national origin.

Muslims from England or Scotland: OK. Persons of any claimed religion from Syria: not OK.

In his platform, Trump is unmistakably advocating national-origin discrimination.

Many readers are intensely interested in this controversy -- including Muslims living in England! We owe them the best available information as judged by its authority, accuracy/verifiability, and currency. (MLA Handbook.) Not as judged by our own arguments (however logical) that Trump's statement is confusing or misleading.

The four authorities cited above do not support the information that "his platform includes ... a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims". Indeed, they would seem more to contradict it. For this reason, I'm removing the information forthwith.

That "Trump has never retracted his previous proposed 'ban on Muslims'" is almost a truism; as a matter of principle, Trump doesn't retract anything he's previously proposed! Nor do most other political figures (e.g., Bill Clinton or George Bush). It would amount to acknowledging they made a mistake.

Nor does Trump in particular feel obligated to address any embarrassing question in a straightforward manner -- or at all.

Although many publications do dwell on such matters, the most authoritative ones (BBC, WSJ, and the like) try to avoid them as being, shall we say, comparatively trifling (or perhaps even a bit juvenile for a seasoned journalist to report on at any great length?). What really matters is, what is the candidate saying in his most authoritative (i.e., most fully amended) platform. Not, what did he say last year.

Look at it this way: Has any high-quality source proposed that Trump was more candid or truthful last year than he is this year?

(Nonetheless, I think we were wise to spend some time investigating this matter.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so. You need CONSENSUS to act on disputed material, not just your own conviction that you are right. CFredkin and I had reached consensus on a wording that included both "Muslims" and "from terrorist countries." Volunteer Marek and Neutrality had earlier agreed with me that "Muslim" should be included. That leaves just you, one against four, claiming that just because he doesn't repeat "Muslim" in every statement he makes, that somehow means that he has dropped religion in favor of national origin (which not even his own people believe; in fact one of them clarified that Trump means MUSLIMS from terror countries). Trump's Muslim ban (including modifications) is his second-most-notable position (after "build the wall"), and it is explained in a full paragraph in the text. IMO we would be wrong to just ignore it in the lede. I think the agreed-upon statement above should be put into the article but I will wait for a little more input from others - because I respect consensus, and so must you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that someone has already restored the phrase; that makes five to one in favor of including it. They restored the existing version; I will replace it with the more consensus-supported version above. Then we should leave it alone until consensus is reached here to do something else. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In the sources you quoted above: while you were cherry-picking quotes, did you not notice the headlines? Only the WSJ even implies that he might be backpedaling on his Muslim ban. The others say "Orlando justifies my Muslim ban", "Donald Trump's evolving Muslim ban", and "Trump hardens stance on Muslims". --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: You wrote, "Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so." Please spell out the discretionary sanction that I violated. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I picked the most relevant quotes. I gave the electronic headline for each article. The headline is not a static source: it's written by editors and varies by edition. And the electronic headline is most often unrelated to the original print headline (the more authoritative 'source'). But no quality newspaper republishes a passage from another newspaper's headline; it reprints relevant passages from the story itself, under its own headline. Nor does any scholarly work ever cite a headline as an authority for a claim.

5. N.Y. Times: How Donald Trump keeps changing his mind on abortion, torture and banning Muslims (June 29, 2016).

On June 13, Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.” But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations “tied to Islamic terror.” Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the author does not write the headline and that it can change. But it reflects what somebody reading and evaluating that article thought the article said. Most of them thought it was still about the "Muslim ban". You seem to be the only one who thinks one quote of his amounted to a repeal of the religious test in favor of a national test. Most, including Trump's own staff, thought it was a modification of the Muslim ban. Here is how the AP tried to analyze his current position: basically, nobody knows what he thinks or what he is calling for. And I loved this: "Asked to clarify whether Trump still supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. as originally proposed, a ban of immigration from countries associated with terrorism, as he said in his post-Orlando speech, or strong vetting of people coming into the country from such nations, as he said this past weekend in Scotland, (spokeswoman) Hicks said: "Mr. Trump stated a position consistent with his speech two weeks ago." "He has been very clear," she added in an email Monday. It's the press, she said, that has "tried to cause confusion."" Yeah, right. Clear as mud, as the saying goes. Apparently his staff can weasel-talk almost as well as he can. But our job as encyclopedists is to try to convey a true sense of the situation, as reported by Reliable Sources. I think the phrase we now have in the lede, and the paragraph in the text, do a pretty good job of doing that. If Trump should eventually make a clear statement of his position - maybe in his acceptance speech? - we should certainly use that. But in the meantime we have to go with what we have. BTW if you look at his ACTUAL platform, spelled out on his web page, he goes into great specific detail about the Wall and about Mexico paying for it. But there is nothing in writing about Muslims that I could find. In fact he has never said anything definite or in writing about his Muslim ban, except for the pledge he used to repeat at every rally, reading it from a card: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." I believe he doesn't do that any more, but he hasn't replaced it with any similarly clear statement. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you and think last article in NYT quoted by Dervorguilla [2] is pretty much instructive. It shows some "common denominators" in all his seemingly contradictory statements. He certainly has some ideas, and here they are: (a) ban Muslims one way or another, (b) ban abortion, (c) take relatives of potential terrorists as hostages (well, that is exactly what Ramzan Kadyrov does). My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for interpreting the article, My very best wishes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: In your reply to my comment you say, "Dervorguilla, you had no right to remove that phrase, and in fact you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by doing so." Please educate me about the particular Sanctions section I violated. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I felt that you violated the spirit of the sanctions - which include not making changes to the article while the issue is under discussion, waiting for consensus instead of acting on your own belief, and avoiding any kind of edit warring. But based on the wording placed on this article by an administrator - "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article" - the DS here apply only to RESTORING controversial material, not to removing it. So in a strict sense you did not violate the DS as stated at this article, and I apologize for saying you did. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, MelanieN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

John Barron (pseudonym)

I created the article John Barron (pseudonym) given coverage of Trump's use of this name. Improvements/expansion welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I marked for CSD, if it's notable, it can be included in this article. But we don't need an entire article just saying that Trump used a pseudonym. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles go into detail about how and when the pseudonym was used. There is more to the story than just "Trump used a pseudonym". I don't think CSD is appropriate, but you can take to AfD if you feel strongly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: This one pseudonym isn't enough to support an article But I suggest you expand it to include his other pseudonyms, including John Miller which got a lot of publicity in May, and move it to Donald Trump pseudonyms. That might (or might not) pass the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Great idea! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion tag saying the article was under development and asking for 24 hours before re-tagging. However, the article is going to have to demonstrate significance by then. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Well, shoot, AB, I thought YOU were going to use the additional time I gave you to expand the article! Turned out I had to do it myself. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Oh, wow, thank you so much. You've shortened my forever-long "to do" list by a notch. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged racism

The following was removed from the lede, but I suggest to move it to the body, under the 'Other personal information" section or something of the like. I don't want to reinstate contentious content without getting consensus though:

Trump is often described as a racist individual by, among others, various politicians, news media, and academics.

Henry ^TALK 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is calling him, the individual, a racist. What they are saying in these sources is that some of the things he SAYS are racist. But either way, I generally feel that name-calling or inflammatory labeling like this does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Source #5 is calling him, the individual, racist, in my mind. The other sources are more referring to his statements (as far as my Internet connection can show them, that is). These two things are not the same (inferring the first from the second is WP:SYNTH), I am dubious that #5 has enough "source strength" to justify putting such a strong statement in the lead section, the others most likely don't.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. WaPo meets RS and is generally reliable for a BLP, but as per policy and longstanding tradition, serious claims like being a racist require serious and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Moreover, the WaPo source isn't even an actual article, but rather explicitly marked as an opinion piece. It isn't even attributed by the Editorial board, but rather has a byline attributing it to one columnist who has been criticized for some very questionable writings multiple times in the past. At this time, calling Trump a racist is not supported by the sourcing required for such a weighty claim. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Refusing to rent to black apartment applicants is a racist action, not just a racist statement. --Nbauman (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources do not describe Trump as a racist, but his comments. Furthermore, per WP:WEASEL, we should not say "is often described as," which is a conclusion of the editor not found in any of the sources and therefore violates WP:NOR. I would point out too that Mexican is not a race but a nationality, just as American is. TFD (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only is "Mexican" not a race, neither are "Latino" or "Hispanic". Not only are "Latino" and "Hispanic" not races, neither are even ethnicities. The media wildly ignores this and labels all three as "race". Amazing how the media supports drama and lack of education. Even PBS. IHTS (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – These accusations are mostly based on fantasies of the commentators and the echo chamber of the media circus (which Trump loves to provoke, granted). Look at the numerous people from minorities who have been employed in his businesses. Look at his promotion of women to executive positions, even decades ago. Look at the convention speakers he invited over the last few days: plenty of women, black people, latinos, Asian immigrants, a gay billionaire, prayers from 4 different religions, etc. I don't think any prior GOP candidate achieved such diversity. — JFG ^talk 02:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. My general view about name-calling, denunciations, and other attacks on a BLP subject is that if an editor really really thinks they belong in Wikipedia then we should not censor the material, but rather we should follow WP:Preserve by including the material in the encyclopedia, but at the BLP of the attacker rather than the BLP of the attackee, except in very unusual cases where the attack is very very widely covered by reliable sources. That's especially advisable where the attacker is less notable than the attackee, because then the attacker's BLP usually can accommodate the material more easily than the attackee's BLP without issues of undue weight arising. Also, the proposed language is way too vague, since it doesn't give any clue about which races he's allegedly racist against.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Question - Are we actually going to need an ivote here? This is ridiculous. Close as "Absurd". Doc talk 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  It can't be closed until Jack Upland adds his customary sarcastic comment/humor. IHTS (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Screw that. Why do editors who are unabashed haters of Trump get to steer the content of this supposedly neutral article? It's a joke. It just defies NPOV. Doc talk 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well, it seems settled then. Henry ^TALK 07:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not a rapist, not a racist, large hands, large signature. Everything's placid in the lily pond.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Nothing about speech plagiarism? It was really, really big news... Doc talk 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  (Just in case this was a real comment rather than your usual sarcasm): The plagiarism was big news about Melania and is in her article. It's also the convention article. There's no justification for mentioning it in the Donald Trump article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Term 'terrorist countries'

In the context of international terrorism, a term such as "terrorist countries" should be understood as meaning countries "where the perpetrators [of such terrorism] operate or seek refuge." See 18 U.S.C. § 2331. And yet Somedifferentstuff's edit summary shows he (quite reasonably!) believes that "terrorist countries" isn't an encyclopedic term. So: We've established that using the term makes the text less accessible to the average editor -- who (like me) would need to consult a legal or business dictionary to find out what the term means in Standard English.

As pointed out in MOS:INTRO § Provide an accessible overview, it's very important that the text in the lead be accessible. Here, for example, we could (1) say what the term 'terrorist countries' means or (2) substitute more accessible language. Based on the terminology used in top-ranked sources (AP, Reuters, and the like), we can use language such as '...areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe, or their allies...'

Does anyone here believe that the average reader wouldn't readily understand what any of those terms means in Standard English? ('Areas of the world', 'proven history', 'terrorism against the U.S.', or 'their allies'?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't make up our own definition. But we can use the definition Trump gave: "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." We do in fact use that phrase in the body of the text. And we can use the shorthand he and his staffers use, "terrorist countries" (in quotation marks), which fits better in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Just passing by, I for one did not know of "terrorist countries" technical meaning. I assumed it was just a term made up by media. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think he means these countries. That's official. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That could be one definition, but it's not Trump's definition. (Would he accept anything "official" from the Obama administration?) His definition is much broader and much less specific: "areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies". I think it's pretty clear that he, and he alone, gets to decide what countries those are. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"...He, and he alone, gets to decide what countries those are." Yes -- much as presidents Carter, Reagan, and Clinton got to designate countries as "state sponsors of terrorism" (in aggregate, 5 countries: 3 Muslim, 2 non-Muslim), and much as President Obama gets to (currently, 3 countries: Syria, Sudan, and Iran).
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy & Human Rights, State Sponsors of Terrorism. --Dervorguilla (talk)06:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In the 60 Minutes interview, Trump said "[from terrorist] territories", not "countries". And it was clear "territories" meant to replace "Muslims", so, the lead is now misrepresentative of his most recent proposal. (Is the lead intending to give a history of his changing proposals? That would be absurd.) IHTS (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That was not at all "clear", as you can see from the extensive discussion above about this. Some of his spokespeople, trying to clarify what he meant, said "the ban would apply to Muslims from terrorist countries" and "nothing has changed". Both he and his spokespeople have repeatedly refused to clarify, even when asked directly, if this "areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism" standard replaces his Muslim ban, or narrows it, or applies to people of all religions from such areas, or what. Since he hasn't withdrawn the ban, and hasn't specified how it relates to the "terrorist areas of the world" standard, I think we have to continue to include the (possibly modified) Muslim ban in the lede. The history of the changing proposals is expounded in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interview, Trump insisted that word "territories" be used to describe, to replace other description that others object to. (You seem to be ignoring that. It has to be pertinent.) IHTS (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the 60 minutes interview you are talking about? I've been quoting his June 13 statement after the Orlando shootings ("I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies") Has he said something more definitive since then? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, OK, you're talking about his joint interview last Sunday with Mike Pence. Here is the exchange that you think makes it clear that territories was meant to replace Muslims:

Lesley Stahl: (to Pence) --in December you tweeted, and I quote you, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."
Donald Trump: So you call it territories. OK? We're gonna do territories. We're gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are. Hillary Clinton wants 550 percent more people to come in than Obama—
Lesley Stahl: So you—
Donald Trump: --who doesn't know what he's—
Lesley Stahl: --so you're changing—
Donald Trump: --so we're going to—
Lesley Stahl: --your position.
Donald Trump: --no, I-- call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?
Lesley Stahl: So not Muslims?
Donald Trump: You know-- the Constitution -- there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I'll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we're not gonna allow the people to come into our country. And we're gonna have a thing called "Extreme vetting." And if people wanna come in, there's gonna be extreme vetting. We're gonna have extreme vetting. They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are.

So he sort of says, several times, that he prefers to talk about territories (or "call it whatever you want"). As for whether he means Muslims, notice that she asks him twice he is talking about Muslims or not, and he evades the question both times. When she asks "so you're changing your position?" he says "No, I - call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?" And when she asks "So not Muslims?" he replies with word salad. If you can find a "clear" statement of policy in this, then you have a very good imagination. In fact this is typical Trump, virtually impossible to parse into an actual statement of policy. But if you see a way to incorporate this recent interview into the lede, please show me your suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the lede currently says: "His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on persons from "terrorist countries") until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." He now says "territories" without defining what characterizes those territories; and he also talks about "territories and terror states and terror nations". How would you modify the sentence to get this new wording in? "(which he later said would focus on persons from "terror states")"? "(which he later said would focus on persons from territories)"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

From the lede: "His platform includes ... a proposal ... (which he later said...)." But compare CMOS ("Grammar"): "The present tense primarily denotes acts ... or states that occur in the present... The past tense denotes an act ... or state that occurred or existed at some explicit or implicit point in the past."

Both the grammar and the meaning are in error, MelanieN.

Also, there is no need for you to attack IHTS's credibility. Both IHTS and I did (independently) find a clear statement of Trump's policy here; and I for one have a very poor "imagination". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The tense is only wrong if he has actually abandoned his "ban Muslims" proposal. Which he has persistently refused to do. But let's stick to what should go in the article. Please state, in a phrase or sentence, what you think should go in the lead on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Content must be agreed in discussion before exact text can be. It's clear he's suggesting to temporarily ban immigrants from certain "terrotories", until "extreme vetting" can screen out "radical Muslim [terrorists]". Plus he previously denied it is a "proposal", and it isn't on his campaign website under "Positions", so "idea" or "suggestion" is a better descriptor. IHTS (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I challenged Dervorguilla to come up with a proposed wording (I almost added "good luck") is that it is almost impossible to make sense out of his latest interview, and impossible to tell whether he has renounced his earlier "Muslim ban" or simply stopped talking about it. He has actually made two definitive, formal statements on this subject that he has put in writing and repeated many times: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." (December) and "When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." (May) He also said, in a May interview, that a Muslim ban "hasn't been called for yet" and was "only a suggestion." And now, in July, he offered an incomprehensible ramble about undefined "territories". The two written statements are his own clear words and IMO should be respected as such, particularly over trying to figure out what he means by parsing partial sentences in interviews. So I'll ask you too: please, tell me what you make of this - and what you think we should say. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Already replied above what is clearly the content. If you disallow Trump to modify his suggestion by keeping forefront what he said in the past, then ending up puzzled is no surprise. IHTS (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: Trump is known for changing his position one or more times in a single spoken sentence! So I personally would use (or believe) only a statement he's made in writing (or under oath).

Here's his plan for immigration reform, which he wrote down nearly a year ago and hasn't changed since:

"We need to stop giving legal immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm. From the 9/11 hijackers [of Saudi Arabia], to the Boston Bombers [of Kalmykia], and many others, our immigration system is being used to attack us... Here are some additional specific policy proposals for long-term reform: [No. 1.] Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses."

So, here's how I would modify the sentence, to bring it into accord with the candidate's historic written (not spoken) platform:

"His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, reform U.S.–China trade, and augment standards for the admission of travelers and asylum-seekers from designated areas (which may include Saudi Arabia, Kalmykia, or Syria, for example)."

But the parenthetical may need some rewording, to meet WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Note that the clause is supported by the inline citation, per WP:LEADCITE. "Statements about living persons that are likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Some authoritative data & definitions

America's biggest ally is Muslim. (And the ally's biggest city is the biggest city in Europe.) And there's a proven history of terrorism "against" it. Terrorism by, in particular, non-Muslim groups.
America's newest ally is Muslim too. (And it's also in Europe.)
NATO, Member Countries. Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy & Human Rights, Foreign Terrorist Organizations; State Sponsors of Terrorism.

"Territory. A geographical area included within a particular government's jurisdiction"; "occupied territory. Territory that is under the effective control and authority of a belligerent armed force".
Black's Law Dictionary.
To illustrate: Think about an area that's within the jurisdiction of the Government of South Sudan but under the effective control of the janjaweed force supported by the Government of (north) Sudan. It would be part of a terrorist "territory" or "area" but not a terrorist "country". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla - Thanks for trying to come up with some actual wording. First of all, I don't agree with your changing "opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP" - something he has been completely consistent on and repeats in every speech - to "reform U.S.–China trade" - a milquetoast, not-very-notable proposal. So let's either leave that phrase alone or start a separate discussion on it.

On your proposed new immigration wording - "augment standards for the admission of travelers and asylum-seekers from designated areas (which may include Saudi Arabia, Kalmykia, or Syria, for example)" - I doubt if even Trump would recognize that as his position. It's certainly not wording that has been widely publicized or used by him in speeches. It's basically boilerplate from a position paper, probably written by staff. The recent wording that he has used, both in writing and in speeches, and has been widely publicized is "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies".

IHTS - One of the disagreements between us here is whether we should include the Muslim ban as part of his "platform," since he hasn't mentioned it recently and some people think it has been replaced by more recent wording. And he later said it was "just a suggestion". I think those are reasonable points. I do think we need to retain the Muslim ban in the lede since it was so widely publicized and controversial (I'd like to add the "Wall", too, but that's another discussion for another day), but let's not make it part of his "platform". How about two sentences, something like this: His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration and opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. In December 2015 he suggested a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States; in May 2016 he said he would accept Muslim visitors from friendly countries but suspend immigration from areas or territories of the world where there is "a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies," until the U.S. has developed better vetting methods to screen out potential terrorists. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think timestamps are too detailed for lede. And picking/choosing only a couple of the major platform positions is ... according to whom? Anyway here's my input for suggested lede text: His platform includes "real" immigration reform, renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, opposition to "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of Veterans' Care, and tax reform. He has suggested a temporary ban on immigration to the United States (initially by all foreign Muslims, except Muslim visitors from friendly countries, then later) from "territories" having "a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies" until better methods of vetting can be developed for screening out potential terrorists. Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory. Ok, IHTS (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Support, with a friendly amendment to strike out the parenthetical. See rev 731032133 by ThiefOfBagdad (rm scrapped proposal, discussed in body). Note, however, that (per WP:LEADCITE) any statement about Trump that's likely to get challenged must have an inline citation everywhere it's mentioned in the lead. So it looks like we may have some work to do. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree w/ striking the parenthetical (the lede is no place for chronicling the evolution of a suggestion). (I anticipated MelanieN would object if "Muslim" were dropped.) IHTS (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"I doubt if even Trump would recognize that as his position." No consensus, MelanieN. The relevant part of the main clause in the sentence closely paraphrases the corresponding text in one of Trump's seven official position papers. And Trump is said to be perhaps overly concerned with control over the details of any document that may have legal consequences -- for instance, a formally adopted platform position paper. (Once approved, the position becomes official and the paper can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.) Compare with Trump's speeches, which are so self-contradictory in important parts that no reasonable person could claim to have believed and been (significantly) misled by anything he says in them.

Looks like Reuters just scooped me on this analysis! "Trump Leaves Some on Wall Street Wary and Confused." 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"It's basically boilerplate from a position paper, probably written by staff." Apparent consensus. It's basically wording from one of the seven Donald J Trump Position papers written by Donald J Trump for President campaign staff on the candidate's behalf, adopted by the candidate's campaign (around August 16, 2015), and published on the candidate's campaign site. Consequently, it's basically wording from his official campaign platform.

"The recent wording that he has used, both in writing and in speeches, and has been widely publicized is 'suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies'."

Yes; and because it's been so widely publicized, there ought to be at least one source, somewhere, that can be given to verify that it's been adopted as part of his campaign platform. If not, it has to get tagged and towed, per WP:V ("Any material challenged must be supported by inline citations") and WP:LEADCITE ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead").

Meanwhile, here's some text that more closely approximates the language in the relevant position paper:

"His platform includes measures to ... increase [or, augment] standards for the admission of refugees, asylum-seekers, and other noncitizens from designated areas."

Here "noncitizen" = anyone who's required to get a visa for admission. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would mostly support IHTS's proposed wording. If I could tweak and simplify the Muslim line, how about "Early in the campaign he suggested a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States; he later modified his proposal to one which would exclude immigrants from territories having "a proven history of ..." That leaves open the disputed question of whether the "terror countries" proposal replaces the "Muslim" ban or leaves it in place in a more restricted form. One other possible friendly amendment: I really think " "real" immigration reform" should say " "real" immigration reform including a proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border". That really is his best-known and most consistent platform, and it can be cited to any of his speeches or directly to his website. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  You (MelanieN & Dervorguilla) still aren't together re whether "Muslim ban" s/b mentioned in lede. (If that history is included, it lengthens the text, and I don't think a parenthetical can be avoided.) Anyway here's updated suggested text (BTW in Trump's RNC speech he said "nations" instead of "territories") ... Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of Veterans' Care, and tax reform. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe, or allies until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.) Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory. Ok, IHTS (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• We do indeed have a nontrivial WP:BALASPS problem here. (Strive to treat each aspect of the subject with a weight appropriate to its weight in the body of reliable sources on the subject.)

As it happens, I came across a preeminently reliable source that could (randomly) be taken as representative of the body of preeminently reliable sources on Trump's platform. From BBC News, "US Election: What Would a Donald Trump Presidency Look Like?" (July 21, 2016):

"Here are five policy areas where Mr Trump has bucked the Republican line. [675 words total.] Gay rights [17.6%]. National security [18.1%]. Immigration [19.3%]. Trade [20.7%]. Foreign policy [24.3%]."

If you analyze the '771 draft by IHTS (114 words total), you get: 0% – 14% – 60% – 19% – 5%. We could rebalance by removing all of the parenthetical material about historical immigration policy and substituting material about Trump's 'weightiest' policies in the gay-rights and foreign-policy areas. (Like: 'Trump has opposed a state law limiting transgender persons' access to bathroom facilities...' 'Trump maintains that the U.S. must have an "unpredictable" foreign policy to keep its adversaries from anticipating its actions...' Or whatever language you think fits here.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The "guide" I used in above draft (for better or worse) was to include after "platform" only items listed under "Positions" on the Trump campaign website. (Beyond that there are so many other position points that could be mentioned besides those I did, so what guide for inclusion/priority/weight? Including: recapturing manufacturing jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, modernizing the military, reforming education, cutting waste, national debt, etc.) IHTS (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Good work, IHTS, I endorse this wording. A couple of minor tweaks: don't capitalize Veterans Care. And instead of tax reform it would be more accurate to say "tax reductions"; that was certainly all he talked about in his acceptance speech. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. And if somebody objects to "nations" he has also said "areas of the world". --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I changed "tax reductions" to "tax cuts" (originally chose "tax reform" to incorporate tax code simplification, but cuts prob carries more weight), and kept the more common word "countries" (= "nations"). Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Support per WP:CON. I maintain my WP:BALASPS concern that we're overweighting his immigration policy, but this does look like a reasonable compromise. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC) This does look like a reasonable compromise -- to us, the 3 editors still contributing to the discussion at "Term 'terrorist countries'". But it may not look like a reasonable compromise to editors who haven't been following this thread for the understandable reason that the term 'terrorist countries' no longer appears in the article. Not a consensus edit yet, but a good edit nonetheless, and one that needed to be made without delay. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think Trump himself uses the term "terrorist countries" much. It seems much more appropriate for us to use the wording he himself uses, doesn't it? That was pretty much the direction this discussion took. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

100% correct, MelanieN. I didn't make clear in my amended comment that I was talking about our final draft of the passage in graf 3 where we're trying to provide a compilation of his most important positions. (We do have a consensus about the topic named in the section heading: the term "terrorist countries" isn't nearly as appropriate as the wording Trump actually uses.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from using Politifact?

I see Politifact articles are often used in Trump's article. Politifact's parent company openly endorses and donates to Hillary Clinton. There is a clear bias in their articles. Yes, sometimes what they write is relatively objective, but there is a very clear bias other times. Can we just please refrain from using them from now on? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Politifact is operated by the Tampa Bay Times which has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. Nevertheless, you need to take this to RSN. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course we will not refrain from using it. If we said we cannot use any media that is linked to any parent company which support one candidate or the other, then we would have virtually no media remaining. So the answer is an obvious "no!". Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This comes up at times on politics pages and is AFAIK always rejected because the Tampa Bay Times is a reputable, reliable source by any standard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you may as well refrain from using The Washington Times, well known for its conservative bias. I think the consensus at Wikipedia is to use any reliable source even if it has a known (or suspected bias). This forces us to cite dueling sources on occasion; is this right, guys? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We do use respected sources that have a conservative or liberal bias (although I wouldn't necessarily include the Moonie Times as a "respected source"). But nobody has alleged that Politifact has a bias; the only objection given here seems to be its ownership. As pointed out by Jeppiz, all papers have an ownership; the question is whether the paper has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Politifact does have that reputation. It is widely quoted and respected by media of all stripes. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington Times is known for its conservative bias but that's not the problem. Nobody minds using the Wall Street Journal on US politics pages or the Financial Times or Economist on UK politics pages, despite their alleged biases. That's because those sources are reliable and respected. The problem with the Washington Times is that it's rubbish and unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bias and reliability are two separate issues. Sources must be reliable, Wikipedia articles must be neutral. TFD (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And neither has been alleged as a problem with Politifact, so maybe we can end this discussion? Clearly there is consensus that Politifact can be used as a source. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

PolitiFact is an invaluable source - and any suggestion that somehow it is meaningfully "biased" against Trump is utter nonsense. As to the Tampa Bay Times and PolitiFact: as is well known, newspapers maintain a separation between their news side and their editorial side. The fact that a newspaper's editorial board and editorial page may take a certain view says absolutely nothing about the quality of the newsroom.

As for the Tampa Bay Times: the newspaper has won ten Pulitzer Prizes and is the largest-circulating newspaper in the third- or fourth-largest state. Moreover, it is, uniquely, owned not by a for-profit media company, but by a nonprofit school of journalism, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. I have seen no evidence at all that the Poynter Institute "openly endorses" or "donates" to any political candidate, and claims to the contrary are irresponsible. Neutrality^talk 21:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

New speech, new lead

There current lead seems to have a lot of issues. It reads:

Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)

The amount of quotation marks is disturbing. The current lead implies that NAFTA and TPP are "unfair", which many disagree on, Trump's immigration policies are "real", which is very debatable, and Trump is the "law and order" candidate, when he's been wanting to punch protesters at his rallies. Just because the the "words" "are" "in" "quotation marks", doesn't mean the ambiguity and misleadingness has disappeared. Also, no mention of ISIS, which has been a major part of his campaign for a long time. What in the world is a scrapped proposal doing in the lead. The Muslim ban has long been banned, why is it even mentioned in the lead if it's not what Trump is leading on now? It makes no sense. "Vetting mechanisms" is a complicated term, we must follow the Wikipedia policies and use terms that it is at least mostly understandable. Also "tax cuts" is insanely low-info and shouldn't even be included. I propose this:

His platform includes combatting illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, reforming healthcare by replacing the Affordable Care Act, rebuilding the U.S. military while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

It's not perfect, I know. And please don't be rude and attack me. But could we at least work together on changing the lead from here as the current one has many issues. Thanks! ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion above, I have proposed a revision of the consensus version that responds to many of the issues you have a problem with. Take a look at it, and please respond there so that the discussion stays all in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove Politico

The editor who wants Politico removed for being biased needs to make his case. I have not encountered any reliability or bias problems with Politico on the other politicians pages that I've edited. Until the editor has shown that Politico is not a reliable, non-partisan source, the Politico reference that was removed should be restored. The editor who made the accusation has made a series of ridiculous and inexplicable pro-Trump edits to this page, which casts further doubt on his accusation being in good faith. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't actually need the Politico reference. I've restored the material, without the Politico reference - and added the other editor's new material as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. My philosophy, which is also the case in the section below this: If somebody objects to a source, don't go to the mat over it, just find another source. If the material is worth including here, there will always be multiple sources--MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

I see where you're coming from but I think it's a mistake to pander to editors who don't have a leg to stand on. It might encourage disingenuous claims, and make editors let disingenuous editors influence them as they consider contributing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN's comment is worth considering, Snooganssnoogans. Also consider that per WP:BIASED, a reliable source isn't required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Per WP:SOURCE, it is supposed to be mainstream (at least if it's used to support a challenged statement in a BLP). And some editors would reasonably question whether Politico is mainstream or whether a particular article in Politico has been fact-checked.

These five sources are the most mainstream as measured by circulation: Reuters, AP, BBC News, Time, WSJ. And their news articles are usually fact-checked. (The opinion pieces are not.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 05:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If the specific Politico article is bad, I think it's fair to delete it (and the same applies to any source, regardless of how respected the outlet happens to be). That was not the editor's complaint though. Nor did he complain that Politico wasn't mainstream enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Snooganssnoogans, you have my recommendation: don't make Wikipedia into a WP:battleground. Don't make it a matter of "principle" or "pandering" or "encouraging disingenuous claims" over a trivial matter like one source where multiple sources are available, or the size of a signature. These political pages are charged enough as it is without going to war over something where perfectly acceptable alternatives are available. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The minuscule sz the sig was shrunk to wasn't "a trivial matter" in my view, obviously. You obviously disagree. (OK. So when my opinion differs from yours, re anything, starting now, it's OK then that I publicly characterize to others that your interest is in trivia and your opinion is trivial!? Good one!) Perhaps you s/ hat that thread and label the hat "Trivia"!? (Never mind two editors relentlessly bashed me over the default long-standing size for no valid reasons, mocked and ridiculed, extending the thread without end. And opened a WP:EWN. And reverted almost daily.) IHTS (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the two editors mentioned by IHTS. I ought to acknowledge that what he says here is not wholly unmerited, MelanieN.

The matter was resolved. No blood, no foul. Let's not bring it up again.

I otherwise agree with your reply to Snooganssnoogans's comment. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Clearly the signature issue wasn't trivial to those engaged in it. and I shouldn't have brought it up because it blurred my point: not to take a stand about things that DON'T really matter. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. IHTS (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think Politico is sufficiently reliable for BLPs. Particularly in the case of the US election. If it wasn't a BLP issue I'd be indifferent but not in this case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for content to be included in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

• He supports increasing U.S. military defense spending, has at various times said he favored and opposed sending US ground forces to defeat the Islamic State, and calls for the resumption of waterboarding. Trump proposes to renegotiate NATO and the WTO; leaving the organizations unless changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

Thanks for this. Offhand reaction: This is way to much to go in the lede, which can include only a few points that can be stated in a sentence or two. (That's the nature of the lede.) In the current proposal, we already have the wall and the immigration limits. We have tax cuts and repeal of ACA. "Opposition to changing SS and Mcare" depends on when he is talking and what your definitions are; he does seem to oppose the usual Republican position of cutting or privatizing them. Likewise he doesn't talk a whole lot about Dodd-Frank and CPA. Pro-life and same-sex marriage are routine for all Republicans, not worthy of mention in the lede. Likewise the climate change and regulation points. He did make quite a point in his nomination speech about the "Free the pulpit" thing, maybe we could add that because we haven't heard a lot about it from other candidates. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if anything has to go, it's Dodd-Frank and CPA first. "He is pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage" is short enough not to took up too much stuff. He's talked a lot about reducing environmental regulations, so while the sentence can be trimmed, I think it's noteworthy enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we can fit most of it in if we use concise language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie's points above. I think the current language that's being formulated in the discussions above reasonably represents his political positions for the lede. I'm concerned that adding more would become undue.CFredkin (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concerns but think the existing lede could be trimmed for the sake of more of his political beliefs (I understand if not all of the content I mentioned could be included). The existing positions that are mentioned could be trimmed some, and lines such as "Trump's presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention." and "with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." could be deleted IMO. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO those passages are more important than platform details, which are spelled out in great detail in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it weird to specifically mention that a presidential campaign receives media coverage and int attention? While I do consider it true that Trump has gotten 2008 Obama-like coverage and attention, it doesn't feel important enough for a lede, especially when core issues like wanting to abolish/renegotiate NATO, WTP and raise tariffs are not mentioned (things that go against bipartisan consensus, has global implications and gets plenty of attention). The protests/riots feel a bit passe in my view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Snooganssnoogans's proposal that this passage be deleted: "Trump's presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention". (The information has now become so self-evident that continuing to include it the lead could be perceived by at least some readers as an insult to their awareness.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Snooganssnoogans's suggested draft, which seems somewhat divorced from the widely circulated mainstream sources that purport to provide concise well-balanced compilations of Trump's most important positions. Perhaps we should try to limit our discussion to those items that are listed in at least two such compilations, as published in mainstream sources that all editors are willing to acknowledge as high quality (BBC News, for example). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to a few of those compilations of views? I'm convinced that my first bullet point would be mentioned in every compilation, as would tariffs on China and Mexio from BP2, bringing back torture (final BP) and his comment about targeting terrorists' families (which I did not put in my BPs), and abolishing/renegotiating NATO in the final BP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

1. Financial Times, Donald Trump promises security and prosperity as US president. "Mr Trump repeated many of the themes that have driven his populist campaign: illegal immigration, global trade, corporate corruption, violence towards police officers, and the rise of radical Islamist terrorism."

2. BBC News, US Election: What would a Donald Trump presidency look like?. "Here are five policy areas where Mr Trump has bucked the Republican line. Gay rights ... National security ... Immigration ... Trade ... Foreign policy ..."

Reuters recently published a limited compilation. The writers mentioned their frustration with the task. As Republicans anoint Trump, party grapples with identity crisis. "His speech ... offered scant detail... He wants to ... in some cases block [trade deals] altogether, like [the] Trans-Pacific Partnership... [He's made a] vow to deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants."

But here are some other pre-eminent, widely circulated publications and newswire services: NYTimes.com, WSJ.com, Time.com, and BigStory.AP.org. (Unlike the Guardian, Washington Post, FOX, CNN, and such, they're marketing themselves to a world audience rather than a particular demographic, and they're known to have the financial resources needed to pay for top-quality journalists and fact-checkers.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Long list of sources

Reddit contributors have compiled this list of press coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)