Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Proposal for top pic

Accepting nomination

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No. US-flag in the background is not neutral. --Jensbest (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of top pics at Wikipedia have flag in background. See, for example, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it is not neutral. Mistakes don't need to be repeated. --Jensbest (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You forget to mention that the pictured candidate is not neutral either, which suggests we should include no picture at all, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Since Hillary has the US flag in the background, so should Trump. They are equals.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• We usually prefer portraits w/o microphones for the lead image. As for the flag, I don't see it much fitting since unlike the examples given above, Trump does not (and never has) hold any public office.--TMCk (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There's already a microphone in the top pic. As for the notion that public servants have any monopoly on the flag, I beg to differ.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but at least it's a portrait. One out of two is better than none...--TMCk (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"VOX" is watermarked at the bottom right of the photo. Doesn't look like a possibility, likely copyrighted without the type of permissions we need to add it to the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, do you see any problem with this license?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies. I read it as VOX when it's actually VOA (Voice of America). I have further cropped the photo and lightened it to be brighter. It looks very suitable to be the infobox photo now, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice crop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not all VOA content is free of copyright (See terms of use) so it remains unclear. Also this seems to be a very low resolution screenshot anyways (besides the above mentioned concerns.--TMCk (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It will be sorted out at Commons if it's not. The regulars over there are good at figuring that stuff out. Currently, the photo remains as determined to be free and usable for Wikipedia articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Trump's face in the proposed photo seem out of focus? Graham (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit soft (out of focus). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I just sharpened it, so not as softly focused now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. Incidentally, the original image is here in case you haven't seen it (sometimes modifying the original is better than modifying a modification of the original).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm supporting inclusion. At this point, "Trump accepting the nomination of the Republican National Convention in 2016" seems more appropriate and helpful than "Trump at a town hall meeting in Derry, NH". --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think having the US flag in the background makes sense, since Hillary has one. However, could we find a more "professional" picture, maybe smiling and looking into the camera (like Hillary)? They should receive equal treatment.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

True as a general principle, Zigzig20s. But Trump characteristically doesn't smile at the camera. And Clinton characteristically does (at least as she's represented in most large-circulation mainstream sources, which are all I read, so that anything I write is more likely to reflect those sources than nonmainstream sources -- both consciously and unconsciously). In this sense, at least, the photos may be equally representative. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Relative to the image itself, Trump's face appears slightly smaller than Clinton's (by 11% or so). Can you try cropping the photo a little more? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to claim Trump doesn't smile so let's not use a better picture. I also don't see a neutrality issue that there can't be a picture of him with the U.S. flag in the background because he doesn't hold office. He's running for the highest office in America. A flag in the background seems appropriate and not at all a neutrality issue.SW3 5DL (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• No - Not a fan of the image. The contrast between the background and the subject is minimal. The use of a dynamic background (as opposed to solid color background of current infobox pic) makes the image harder to read as well, in this case since his head is surrounded by the field and canton of the flag, as opposed to a consistent pattern of just the stripes around his silhouette. Personally (and I acknowledge it's a personal preference) I don't like the facial expression and prefer non-speaking images so the mouth isn't agape. I don't see anything this image offers that's an improvement upon the current infobox image. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, for the reasons given in the graphic-element analysis by EvergreenFir. (Personally, though, I often prefer a speaking image; some subjects put on a 'poker face' when they're listening.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Bad contrast with background indeed. Open mouth of subject. No improvement from current picture (which was repeatedly debated at length and endorsed). — JFG ^talk 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Current photo is clearer; the background on this one makes the whole thing look out of focus. NB--there's nothing wrong per se with a flag in the background, but this background is too busy and blurred; it detracts from the subject's face. YoPienso (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing pictures

User:Gaaas99 removed the picture of the teenaged Donald Trump at his military academy, with the edit summary "Reverted picture of Trump at NYMA in keeping with condensing article and because presence of numerous medals gives false impression about his military service". I think it should be restored. As a picture of the young Trump it adds insight to the article, and no one is going to think that a bunch of high school medals imply actual military service. If we feel the need to remove some of the numerous pictures from the article (in order to "condense" it), I suggest eliminating some of the dozen or so shots of his buildings, golf courses, etc.; or some of the "Trump posing with so-and-so" pictures with Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Dennis Rodman, etc. (maybe per WP:INHERITED?). And we certainly don't need a picture of the church where he claims membership. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While the medals may not imply actual military service, I feel there is a distinct imbalance in the section when taken as a whole. This imbalance has evolved over the past couple of months. The paragraph regarding Trump's lack of military service has become an afterthought due to the actions of a few editors. The title has now been changed to "childhood..." from early life... The picture of the medals may not imply actual military service but Trump seems to think "NYMA gave him "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military"" (this statement is adjacent to the picture). Even a statement that he did not volunteer (rather than being drafted) for military service was deleted by an editor. Perhaps a separate section entitled "Military Service" is in order.Gaas99 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I agree. It should be restored.- MrX 15:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

yes restore, it shows Trump existed 40 years back and was NOT dropped here by aliens over the last 2 decades..--Stemoc 16:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that for consensus and restore the image. I'd like to see some opinions here about whether any other pictures should be removed, and if so why? Personally I would like to see the picture of the church removed; it's not really about him, and the church has kind of distanced itself from him, saying he is not an active member. A more general question: Are there too many pictures in the article, and do they contribute to the bloat or oversized nature of the article that some have complained of? --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree the pictures of him posing with people and the photo of the church make no sense. The picture of him at a baseball game doesn’t appear to contribute anything. The picture of the Ocean Club International probably doesn’t fit its description. I can’t find anything that suggests he owns or operates the building. Objective3000 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the church pic, and reinsertion of the military academy pic, but not with removal of further pics. As you can see, reinsertion of the military academy pic barely changed the byte count. Instead, I think there is a lot of textual fat that can be trimmed. For example, I just removed the list of books to a new article List of books by or about Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. These images add little to understanding the subject and can be removed as far as I'm concerned- MrX 20:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• 
  File:Central Park Wollman Rink.jpg
• 
  File:Turnberry Hotel.jpg
• 
  File:Donald trump at the game (3728975319).jpg
• 
  File:Trump in Ames (24490966335).jpg
• 
  File:Marble Church NYC.jpg
• 
  File:Trump CPAC (Improved).jpg

Looks like we have agreement to delete the church picture, and I will remove it. We need more discussion on the pictures of him posing with people (I and one other want to remove them), the picture of him at a baseball game (I and two others want to remove it), and the pictures listed by Mr. X (I would be OK with dumping any or all of them). I will look into the question about the Ocean Club International. And I agree with Anythingyouwant that the bloat in this article is not from pictures; it is from text. I do feel that spinning the books off to a separate page was an improvement, so thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you, Melanie; I just removed the church pic. I'm neutral on removing the other ones. Would rearrange photos of his family and swap out a different photo of his plane and of Celebrity Apprentice. Template at top is correct--article needs to be split. YoPienso (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep the CPAC pic and the one with Palin. The one with Trump in the stadium can go because it does not show Trump very clearly. Because the others are of buildings and not of Trump, I don't mind removing them. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing pics barely changes article size. I like the one of Trump in the stadium because it's one if the very few pre-2010 pics we have and it illustrates the subject of sports very well. have already split off material once today, by creating a new article. Will do it again. Please note that the Hillary Clinton article is just a little smaller than this one byte-wise, so it's not a huge problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, YoPienso, you beat me to it. @Objective3000: I don't understand what your problem is with the picture of the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower; all the references I consulted say that it was developed or co-developed by the Trump Organization, and Bloomberg says "The Trump Ocean Club is Donald Trump’s first hotel and apartment complex to open outside the U.S."[1] @Anythingyouwant: What would you think about spinning off the filmography into a separate article as well? --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the filmography will reduce the bytes much, but I could test it out. Also, I think the filmography (like the pics) kind of breaks up the monotony a bit. I plan on shrinking the article tomorrow night, but haven't quite yet decided how. This edit mysteriously removed the longstanding image of the skating rink, and so I plan on putting it back if someone else doesn't put it back first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Page size and readable prose

Is anyone actually concerned about the number of bytes in the article? I think that would be rather silly. My issue with some of the images is that they are distracting without adding any useful information. The skating rink is not really biographical.- MrX 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a tag currently atop this article regarding article size. At Wikipedia, article size is typically measured in bytes. So, yes, the number of bytes in the article is currently a matter of concern. The skating rink picture seems very biographical to me, since it illustrates an achievement of the subject that arguably was a public service. The caption is also informative. The image of the church was very tenuously related to Trump, so I support its removal, while keeping the others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

We're nowhere near the 2,098,175 size limit, so the concerns about bytes is much ado about nothing. On the other hand, readability should be a concern and when articles drift off their main topic, trimming is a good idea. We could stand to trim the Further legal matters section. We could condense the WWE section to a couple of sentences, reduce the Trump Tower section to a paragraph, and reduce or condense and a lot of other trivia like "In February 2009, Trump appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman,...".- MrX 00:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Preserve, I strongly favor farming out material to existing articles or new articles, instead of simply deleting it. The 2,098,175 limit is not relevant here. Per WP:TOOLONG, here are some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub.

For presidential nominee BLPs, tradition allows greater length, but still it would be good to get this BLP under the length of the Hillary Clinton BLP, at which point I think the tag can be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: My problem with the Ocean Club Hotel is that the caption and section gives it as an example of a property owned and operated by Trump. But, there is no evidence of either. Also, the Wollman Rink project is controversial in NYC, although that is not well knowm. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I don't know what evidence you feel is lacking. Plenty of sources describe the Trump Organization as the "developer", along with a local partner. The source I cited above, Bloomberg, refers to it as one of Donald Trump's hotels. It's true that he often licenses his name out to properties rather than own them outright, but do you have any evidence that is the case here? All I found was that a company is leasing part of the property to build a casino. In the absence of any evidence that it ISN'T his property, I don't see any basis for removing the image if that's what you were suggesting. But I'd be OK with rewriting the caption, which is rather florid. Currently it says "The Trump Organization owns, operates, develops, and invests in real estate worldwide such as Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (center) in Panama City, Panama." We could just caption it "The Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (center) in Panama City, Panama" and leave out any reference to owning, operating, etc. Would that meet your objection? --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A rewrite of the caption would help. But, I have seen no evidence that he owned or operated the property. Indeed, it appears to be owned, operated, and developed by Newland International Properties. Trump is not an officer of that corp. The connection to Trump seems tenuous. Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the caption. I do find references to Newland as the co-developer (with the Trump Group), and I do find a quote from Trump referring to it as a "Trump branded" property. Whether or not Trump owns it, clearly it is part of the Trump family, and if we remove the reference to ownership I don't see why the picture can't stay. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant I think you overlooked the part of the guideline immediately following the part you quoted. It says "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." Donald Trump has a Prose size (text only) of 78 kB (12946 words) (readable prose size).- MrX 00:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting until later to check readable prose size (because I'm sometimes lazy perhaps). You're correct that it's 78 kb for this article. And it's 102 kB for the Hillary Clinton article. The total size of this article (visible from the edit history) is 285,168 kB (down from 298,076 earlier today). So now the page loads better, its readable prose is substantially lower than it was earlier today, and I think the tag can now be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep the Rink image. See Donald Trump Biography ("Trump rebuilt the Wollman Skating Rink (now the Trump Rink) in Central Park... Similarly, he rebuilt Lasker Rink, in Harlem..."). His work on this facility is discussed in several high-quality high-circulation sources. The caption should be trimmed, however. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin's recent edits

• In this revert [2] CFredkin removes the sentence "These two properties filed a pre-packaged bankruptcy in March 1992." sourced to the Philadelphia Inquirer with the edit summary "rm redundant with existing bankruptcy content and rm unsourced"

1. How in the world is this "unsourced"? There's a big freakin' inline citation sitting right there. It's sort of hard to miss, especially when one is removing it.

2. Second, it is not true that this sentence is "redundant with existing bankruptcy content". This info is about the 1992 bankruptcy of Trump Plaza. The other information about Trump's bankruptcies are about the 1991 Taj Mahal bankruptcy, and the 1995 bankruptcy of Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. It's not redundant. It's just that Trump has bankrupted businesses many times.

I'm having a hard time believing that this revert was made in good faith, since the edit summary is so blatantly false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, since you restored the content with this edit, perhaps you could direct us to the source for the following statement in the content you restored: "Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014."?

And even when you were forced to self-rv and remove the content based on this discussion, your edit summary says: "I'll self revert this, but it's ridiculous to call these sources unreliable, AND without this information the information doesn't make sense."

Unless you can show where sourcing existed for the sentence above, I'm having a hard time believing that your revert was made in good faith, since the above edit summary is so blatantly false.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also pretty important that we let the reader know that Trump has sold off Trump plaza in 2013. Is this controversial or something? Here's a source [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This sentence you inserted ("Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014") was not accompanied by a footnote, so that's probably what CFredkin meant by unsourced. Moreover, if you look at the Table of Contents of this BLP, there's a whole section titled "Business bankruptcies". And that section says (emphasis added): "According to a report by Forbes in 2011, the four bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City: Trump Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009)." Why do we have to discuss bankrupticies outside of that section too? It seems redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That means there's overlap between the section "Business bankruptcies" and "Trump extends" so they should be combined into one. In fact, "Trump extends" is an incorrect title since that section also is pretty much about his bankruptcies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would an edit like this resolve your concern about the section heading "Trump expands" and be acceptable to other parties? (I've self-reverted for now, pending discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There's already a subsection on bankruptcies titled Business bankruptcies, 1991–2009, so we shouldn't have two subsections with "bankruptcy" in the header. It seems much simpler to just move any bankruptcy material in this BLP to the subsection on bankruptcies (or to the separate article which it summarizes). Having the bankruptcies in a dedicated subsection is convenient for people looking for information about the bankruptcies, and that's how this article has been structured for a long time. I don't support (redundant) discussion of bankruptcies outside of the section on bankruptcies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a separate "Bankrupcies" section. If it were up to me I'd try to keep things in chronological order if possible. Not mentioning bankruptcy in the "Trump Expands" section (1986-1990s) doesn't make sense to me, since the next section begins with the sentence, "The late 1990s saw a resurgence in Trump's financial situation." Perhaps the material in the current Bankruptcy section could be merged into the article chronologically? Although it seems that half that section is dedicated to quoting Trump on how "fantastic" his bankruptcies were...not sure where that material would go. </snark> ~Awilley (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just moved the subsection on "business bankruptcies" so that it immediately follows the subsection titled "trump expands".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that the bankruptcies are an essential part of the chronology in describing his business activities. IMO they could be mentioned in passing in the chronological sections, while retaining a separate, summary section listing the bankruptcies and including his philosophy about bankruptcy as a business strategy. I think people will look for a section on this subject, since his company's bankruptcies are cited frequently in connection with the campaign. Anything, I think your move accomplishes both of these things and I endorse it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed "Trump" from two section headings as suggested by Awilley. Anythingyouwant, I have looked again at you4 move of the Bankruptcy section and I think it should go after the "Inheritance and further acquisitions" section instead of after the "Expansion" section. It fits there better chronologically, because it lists filings as late as 2009. I am going to move it there, subject of course to further discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted my move since Anything indicated they want to discuss it further. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's your edit. AWilley said above: "Not mentioning bankruptcy in the 'Trump Expands' section (1986-1990s) doesn't make sense to me, since the next section begins with the sentence, 'The late 1990s saw a resurgence in Trump's financial situation.'" That's why I inserted the bankruptcy section in between. Two of the bankruptcies were before the late 1990s, and two were after, so either way we do it this stuff will not be purely chronological --- which is fine because this article is structured by subject as much as it is structured by chronology. Anyway, I would prefer if we not do anything that will prevent or discourage consolidation of bankruptcy stuff in the one subsection where readers will be going for that info. Plus, the bankruptcy section is very brief (being a summary of a main article) so it doesn't interrupt chronology much where it is now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense to me. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Website

VR, your recent edit summary [4] states, "his Muslim ban is still on his website." --- I just checked Trump's website, here, and it doesn't say anything about Muslims. Please self-revert your edits. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The added source (published yesterday) verifies it:
"Trump's unprecedented call in December 2015 "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" is still listed on his campaign website, and he has yet to personally denounce the controversial proposal."
So it must be somewhere unless they've just removed it today.--TMCk (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is all over his website: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].

Thanks, didn't see those. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'll put it back in.VR _talk 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

POV lead.

The lead does not come close to being a summary of the article and the controversial aspects of this individual. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I, for one, think there should be sentence about Trump's 2011 birther campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understand, Trump called for release of the certificate, it was released two days later, and that was that. While left-wing blogs have certainly made a huge thing of it, I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's birther campaign lasted for 6 weeks, it was hugely covered by the mainstream media to the point where it received non-stop attention on cable news networks, and has been regularly cited since then as laying the groundwork for his 2016 campaign. Here's an example. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And here and here are examples of stories about media attention given to Trump's birther campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it's had the long-term notability to make it ledeworthy, and it's not a significant part of his career or his campaign.CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The last two links are examples that are both from April 2011. The first link to the NY Times (dated July 3, 2016) may be worth including as a reference in this Wikipedia article, if it's not already there, but it explains that the controversy was tightly confined in time in March and April 2011: "Then, almost as quickly as it began, the controversy subsided. And several weeks later, Mr. Trump decided not to seek the Republican nomination. Though he continued to do well in polls, he seemed to be more focused on his reality television pursuits. Now, Mr. Trump almost assiduously refuses to discuss the topic, which, according to several people close to him, was always more about political performance art than ideology. 'I don’t talk about that anymore,' Mr. Trump told the MSNBC host Chris Matthews after a Republican debate last year." I think this was a pretty discrete episode that has not had much lasting impact. Below, I quote what this BLP currently says about it, and would be interested to know whether that seems okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if we're looking to trim stuff from the lead, I think the entire 4th paragraph can be cut (about delegates and all that). It's highly procedural and yesterday's news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I shortened it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think all of Dr. Fleischman recommendations would help make it less POV-pushing, but I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

References

User:DrFleischman, as I understand your position about the tag atop the article, you agree that it's overkill. Indeed any use it has had has already been served. I hope that all of us editors don't get into a lengthy dispute about tagging. As to your concerns about the birther stuff, I think the place to start is the body of the BLP; do you feel that the following info from the body of the BLP is a fair description, and if not then how would you modify it?

“ In April 2011, Trump waded into the controversy about President Barack Obama's proof of eligibility as a natural born citizen: "His grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth, okay?"[265][266][267] Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case.[266][268][269] Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records,[270] plus release of a long form birth certificate.[271][272] Two days later, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form.[273] Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role.[274] When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".[275][276] ”

User:Gouncbeatduke says about the article, "I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored". Well, the lead does not include any references, so the tag should apparently be moved from the top to whatever section Gouncbeatduke thinks those references belong. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead currently seems to do that. Getting to the list of references that Gouncbeatduke wants inserted, the list is puzzling. Consider the first two:

• King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
• Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.

We already say: "Many legal experts were critical of Trump's attacks on Curiel, often viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.

References

I think that's more than adequate, and I don't see why to add the proposed King and Steinhauer references, which would be overkill. Gouncbeatduke's next suggested reference is this:

• Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.

This is an opinion piece. I strongly feel that a BLP like this needs facts much more than it needs opinions. I'm not trying to cram this BLP full of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity opinions, and that's a good thing, right? Skipping to Gouncbeatduke's suggested references regarding a Star of David:

• Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
• Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.

I think this would best go (if anywhere) into the Trump campaign article, but not this one. This kerfuffle had no staying power. All the news reports about it were confined to a single week, and we haven't heard any more about it since then. For good reason! According to Politifact, "Based on the evidence available, it seems unlikely that the Trump campaign intended to put out a Star of David image. In fact, the campaign moved to replace the star with a circle when the image gained attention." So, Gouncbeatduke's long list of references really have nothing to do with the lead (because the lead doesn't include any footnotes at all), and even in the body of the BLP these references would be very inappropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, it is clear to anyone editing this article that you are pro-Trump (which is fine), but the fact of the matter is that there has not been a presidential candidate (in my adult life) that has stated as many controversial statements as Trump has. This needs to be reflected in the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell recently said that the voter has a choice between russian roulette (with Trump) versus suicide (with Clinton). Suffice it to say that I think Sowell is a very wise man. The lead says, "His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." Obviously that should remain, and I think it addresses your point at least partly. He does say a lot of things like that, but each individual one seems to be forgotten when the next one causes another stir, and in each case a lot of non-neutral media makes each controversial comment more controversial. I think we can discuss this phenomenon and maybe have the article address it more, but I don't think the lead is inaccurately summarizing the body of the article. We're only supposed to cover stuff that has staying power per WP:Recentism, and we do have a whole subsection titled "comments about fringe theories". Anyway, I do not intend to remove the POV tag in the 2016 election section right now, only the one at the top of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, this thread was opened to talk about the lead, so let's keep it to that subject. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the lead is lacking in some departments and I support keeping the {{pov-lead}} tag until this issues are resolved. I'd like to hear from Cwobeel what their specific concerns are. Here are my responses on specific issues. Feel free to interlineate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• birtherism: Trump may have only hyped up Obama's birth certificate for 6 weeks, but the significance of his birtherism goes way beyond those 6 weeks, as demonstrated by the WaPo article (and many others). Trump's birtherism has been cited regularly by the news media ever since 2011. Completely excluding it from the lead section reads as POV in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I count fourteen (14) footnotes in the birther material that's in the article now, none of which is WaPo. I don't see how we can discuss putting birther stuff in the lead until we have some consensus that it's taken care of in the body of the article. This is required by MOS:LEAD. The body of the article does not currently indicate much long-term significance, and the mentions about it in the media since 2011 have almost always been in passing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• racism: There has certainly been much written by Trump's racism but I'm not aware of any consensus among reliable sources that we can cite in any sort of concise way. We already say many of his statements are controversial, and perhaps that's enough? As a practical matter I highly doubt we'll ever gain consensus to put anything about racism in the lead section so honestly I'm inclined not to perpetuate the flamefest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• lies: I think a sentence may be warranted on Trump's dishonesty, which has received a tremendous amount of media coverage. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess the most recent episode was "Hillary founded ISIS". He claims it was sarcasm. I think any sane person realizes he wasn't saying that Hillary convened a bunch of terrorists and urged them to start killing people. Again, this has to be fleshed out in the article body before it could possibly go in the lead. This is required by MOS:LEAD. If the lead accurately summarizes what's in the article body right now, then there's no reason to discuss the lead right now. Lies about Trump have also occurred, BTW, but maybe that's too tangential for this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, re: "Hillary founded ISIS", His sarcasm seems to elude many observers including his running mate. He made the statement on Wednesday, defended it as spoken to Hugh Hewitt and didn't walk it back to sarcasm until Friday

Gaas99 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaas, your first link, to politicususa, is very unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, they don't have a Wikipedia article, and even if they did, their own self-description disqualifies them from being a WP:RS for our purposes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the ref with a more persuasive one -- same info.Gaas99 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I'm not aware of any requirement that content can't be added to the lead section unless it's also covered in the body. If that were the case we'd be slashing a good deal of the lead section content across the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." There's even a special tag to put in the lead when it's not supported by the article body.[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The point of the sentence, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article," is to exclude the very type of argument you're making here, which is to keep a subject out of the lead section until it has been covered in the body (or in the case of the birther stuff, to keep it in the lead section until we have consensus that our coverage in the body is deep enough). The lead can improved and then the body can be harmonized with it later. I personally am not particularly interested in the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD is very clear that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. If you don't care what's in the body and only care about putting stuff in the lead, then that directly contradicts MOS:LEAD, in my opinion. Nothing can be excluded from the lead provided that it summarizes what's in the body of the article. Even putting aside MOS:LEAD, as a matter of common sense, shouldn't we first boil down the reliable sources to something that can fit into the body of the article, before boiling it down further to obtain something for the lead? Instead, I can't even get you to say whether the body of the article adequately covers the issue. You really think we should put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article? That strikes me as very bad editing, and I hope you don't support it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Echoing DrFleischman: there is absolutely nothing in MOS:LEAD that justifies removing material solely because it's not contained in the body of the article. Yes, the lead and body should be harmonized, but there is no prescription for which should be edited first. In fact, as DrFleischman points out, the guideline specifically states that information should not be removed from the lead in these situations. It is completely legitimate to first work material into the lead, and then flesh it out in the body of the article, and you are badly misrepresenting the guideline, as well as fellow editors' positions.

Anythingyouwant, you've now made this specious argument repeatedly to justify removing well-sourced, relevant material from the lead. (A more cynical person than I might also note that you tend to employ this misrepresentation only to remove material which reflects less-than-positively on Trump). Since you've repeatedly cited MOS:LEAD, a reasonable person would assume that you've actually read it. We are thus left with the question of why you're not only misrepresenting the guideline, but using it in a way that the guideline itself specifically warns against. That's a concerning behavior, but outside the scope of this talkpage. For now, please stop making this argument. It would be tiresome to have to continually correct your misrepresentation of the guideline, although it is a good reminder that such assertions about policy should always be verified given your track record. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No MastCell, I will not stop making the good faith argument that we should not put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article, unless and until someone convinces me that I'm mistaken. If you are confident that I am mistaken, then you should have no trouble rallying a consensus in your favor, instead of trying to shut me up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's another deliberate misrepresentation: I don't see anyone advocating the inclusion of unsourced material in the lead. And you've already been shown the portion of the guideline which explicitly OKs adding material to the lead first, and then developing it in the body. This is not good-faith editing on your part. If you persist in this disruptive and dishonest behavior, then I will request that the discretionary sanctions covering this article be invoked, so that the rest of the editors here can get on with their work. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been an active editor at this article this summer, User:MastCell. Thankfully, this means I can view your comments as those of a fellow editor, and no more. If Dr. Fleischman is not proposing to put facts into the lead without footnotes and without support in the article body, then he can say so and can clarify what he's proposing. He's already said quite clearly that he doesn't care what's in the article body on this subject, and of course this lead excludes all footnotes. I am an honest man, MastCell. For over nine years at multiple articles and other venues, you have made bogus arguments to the contrary. I suggest you stop before you embarrass yourself further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As explained at user talk of User:NeilN, I am de-watchlisting this article immediately. I have no interest in being railroaded, or in being party to an article that is subject to unlimited POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness. This isn't the first time Anythingyouwant has blatantly misinterpreted guidelines and other editors' comments to push their editing agenda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that comment was inappropriate. I suggest you strike it - or delete it together with my response. Please remember to discuss article content, not personalities, and remember that this page is under Discretionary Sanctions, which includes the requirement to abide by "expected standards of behaviour". --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

MastCell's assertions are not supported by Template:Citation needed lead:

This template is specifically intended to challenge a fact in the lead section of an already well-sourced article, where that lead is clearly intended to function as a summary of the content, but the fact tagged does not appear in the body.

BLPs

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.

Such facts should be removed per BLP. If reinstated, I propose that they could briefly be tagged [not verified in body] to alert other editors and forestall edit-warring. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're making a mess by trying to get around MOS:LEAD. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag unsourced items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does not mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").

I'm not sure why people are working so hard to get around the relatively straightforward guidance in MOS:LEAD. Separately, no interpretation of the template documentation can excuse Anythingyouwant's misrepresentation of MOS:LEAD, but that is a behavioral issue for another venue. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of deliberately lying, User:MastCell? This is the fourth time in the last week that you have accused me at this page of "misrepresentation", and that's what the word means.[14] How many more times can I expect this from you at this article talk page? If such serious and insulting attacks are "for another venue" then why do you insist on using this venue again and again and again and again? Editors often interpret policy and guidelines somewhat differently, and I am happy to discuss this particular one, and revise my views about it as I already have. At first, I discussed the policy here from memory at the explicit suggestion of an administrator (User:NeilN), and then I went and checked it to see if I got it wrong, and I then quoted the pertinent part at length so everyone can read it.[15] Editors can edit the lead, but then if it is not supported by the body of the article the two must be harmonized so the lead summarizes the body; but no contentious material can be put into the lead, without support in the article body, if that material is unsourced. This lead does not include footnotes, so any contentious material put into this lead without support in the body fails WP:BLP. If you disagree with my understanding of policy, please feel free to explain why you think I'm mistaken, and please try to do so without saying yet again that I'm a goddamned liar. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Colleagues: {{citation needed lead}} is one of the 55 inline "verifiability & sources" tags. For a helpful list with usage notes, see WP:Template messages - Cleanup, § Verifiability and sources, §§ Inline with article text. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Observations

1. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." This sentiment is repeated throughout MOS:LEAD. There must be consensus that whatever is added to the lead, is important enough to justify its place there.
2. If content in the lead is not found in the body then the lead content must have acceptable inline cites.
3. Standard facts in the lead do not have to be repeated in the body but most other things should appear with more details or at least the wording of such details should be actively discussed on the talk page with an eye to synchronizing the lead and body sooner than later.
4. Different editors place different emphasis on different parts of guidelines. Doing so is not deliberate misrepresentation. It may be an incorrect representation or interpretation but the words chosen above are not the best.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE is also pertinent. Among other things, it says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." There are no footnotes in the lead of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, et cetera. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

POV lead (redux)

The above thread seems to have petered out without much substantive discussion. Does anyone have any ideas of specific ways the lead section can be improved? I've suggested the addition of a sentence each on birtherism and dishonesty. Any additional thoughts on those? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

First let's put in some more details about Trump Organization's activities. Over the course of Trump's life, most of his time, thoughts, and money have been invested in his company (not in his campaigns). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I support that effort, but I don't think the addition of some content should hold up the addition of unrelated content. Unless there are objections I'll take a stab at a couple of sentences. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Various business connections

"Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia"

I am not a fan of Donald Trump but really, let's stop pretending Wikipedia is unbiased. --Allen Nozick (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Table of Contents you'll find a section titled "Alleged links to organized crime". Here's a link to that section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The section is sourced, and includes the fair assessment that he was never charged with any crime and that it was pretty much necessary for any businessperson of that time to do business with mob figures. Looks balanced and NPOV to me. "The Mafia's candidate" - those are your words, not Wikipedia's. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this section is a BLP violation and should be removed per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it. Hillary is from Chicago; there could be similar fanciful ideas on her talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it should be included or not -- but it's detailed with cites, not fanciful; and what does the fact that Clinton spent her childhood in Chicago have to do with this? Objective3000 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000--Zigzig20s's comment with zero basis is inappropriate and itself a borderline BLP violation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Neither candidate is "the Mafia's candidate". You know that's what I meant. We need to stop with the smears here and focus on their policies, please. The election is a serious matter.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I re-read your comment and saw it in a more generous light. Sorry about that. The broader point is that there are reliable sources discussing alleged ties between Trump and organized crime. I'm not aware of any such sources for Clinton, so it's not an apt comparison. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

One way to treat it seriously is to ignore the allegations that Trump is in bed with the mafia, unless concrete evidence emerges. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, that is my position as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between having very remote business interests because real estate development is a small market, and being their "candidate" (sic). I object to this talkpage section. It should be closed/archived immediately.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is closing a day-old, legitimate discussion about article content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

support the removal in this main BLP, but support keeping Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Allegations_of_business_links_to_organized_crime in the sub-article, per WP:Preserve, although a header edit may be appropriate there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• That title is a BLP violation; I have changed it. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of this section until someone finds a top-quality high-circulation mainstream source (like Time, WSJ, BBC, NYT, Reuters, AP) that supports it. See the WP:RSVETTING essay. A variable-quality medium-circulation source (like FOX, CNN) isn't good enough to support a contentious statement about someone.

"Contentious material is material that people might take a position on for ideological reasons."

What if we found support for the material in both FOX and CNN? In that case I think it would likely be judged (by a large majority of Wikipedia editors and the public, whether biased or not) as comparatively non-contentious. We could then cite both variable-quality sources! --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think CNN is usually adequate but the bigger problem is that this particular article attributes the allegations to other sources, suggesting that CNN itself did little or no fact checking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the real BLP violation was the section in the main article presenting Trump as the Mafia's candidate. Thankfully, it has been blanked by DrFleischman. I am personally on the left of Bernie Sanders, but there are some methods I find unacceptable. --Allen Nozick (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When did it ever say that? It simply said that Trump did business with the Mafia, which is well documented. Wasn't it you that used the phrase "Mafia's candidate?" Objective3000 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• My wicked sense of humor, I suppose. --Allen Nozick (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As seen here on Trump's position page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

I feel that Trump's position on the 2A should be mentioned as part of his platform in the lede so I added "protection of the Second Amendment", as it's stated on Trump's site "Protecting that freedom [2A] is imperative" and to go along with similarly brief statements like "reform of veterans' care" and "replacement of the Affordable Care Act" but was reverted for the wording being vague.

Does anyone know a suitable wording? Zaostao (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, without taking a position pro or con about whether something like this belongs in the lead, I can certainly discuss how it might be clarified. To say that his platform includes protection of the Second Amendment is vague. Does it mean he wants to protect the Second Amendment from being repealed? Does it mean he wants to appoint judges who protect a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment? Does it mean he wants to make sure that government officials don't violate whatever the Second Amendment means according to the Supreme Court? The whole thing is very vague. It would be much clearer to say that his platform includes protecting a broad Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

All politicians make vague, feel-good promises. Protect the Second Amendment, save Medicare, support veterans, tax reform. It's generally impossible to pin these down to specific proposals or actions, and it's not our job to try. We can't put words in their mouth. We can only report what they say. As to whether to include it in the lede: the lede should contain a few (no more than half a dozen) of his best known issues (i.e., most widely reported or most frequently and at length expounded by him in his speeches). Offhand I don't think his 2nd Amendment position is one of those half dozen. Furthermore, it doesn't distinguish him; all Republicans and many Democrats say the same thing; it's just an expected check-mark on their platform. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says "Trump supports the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general". Almost every politician says they support the Second Amendment (though they interpret it in very different ways). But general opposition to gun control might be brief and distinctive enough for the lead; we can check the sources but I think general opposition to gun control has been a constant and major theme.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a very big topic in his rallies—usually in conjunction with SC picks—and there was of course a lot of coverage on it last week. Clinton's article also talks of "protecting women's rights" in the lede which is even more vague than protecting the 2A and something that you'd expect every candidate to say. Sorry if that's an otherstuffexists argument. Zaostao (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not significant that a candidate for president supports the Constitution. It is only significant when s/he opposes it. TFD (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but 99% of all descriptions of policy positions that reference constitutional language are going to be non-neutral. Mainstream reliable sources do not talk about protecting or supporting the Second Amendment. They talk about opposing gun control (or occasionally, supporting the gun industry). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Both candidates support gun control to some degree. For example neither supports the right of prisoners to keep and bear arms, although they enjoy all the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. TFD (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying anything about the candidates' positions on gun control. All I'm saying is that when our articles discuss gun control, they should do so using neutral language, which generally means no references to the Second Amendment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why we should not "discuss gun control" in this article, which would mean specific proposals or policies from him - of which I don't think he has any, or doesn't talk about specifics in his speeches. We should discuss or list what he says, not what we think he meant, and not some obscure passage in his written platform (if he never bothers to spell it out in his public utterances). If this means we use somebody's weasel words, we use them - or else leave the subject out. I favor leaving it out in this case; he is just saying what every other candidate says, reciting a Republican mantra. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

He says quite a bit beyond mantras. See Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Gun_regulation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe his positions on gun control, then so should we. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We do describe them - at the Political Positions article. This is a biography. It is not the place to lay out all his political positions in detail - just to mention a few highlights as they are relevant to understanding the man. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)