Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Wikipedia photo

I know a section above, now closed, was discussing the photo, but maybe it's worth mentioning again and in its own section that the image used on most of the Trump articles and templates here is, because of the illusion of Trump "blowing smoke out his ear", just this side of ridiculous. Once you see that it can't be unseen, and although I appreciate the lol quality (and I do lol often when seeing it) and the surrealistic and social commentary made by the perceived image, I think it really should be deleted from not only those pages, but from the site. Randy Kryn 15:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to be that guy, but no, we cannot selectively remove something in an image that was actually there in reality. It's text on the background behind the subject, not dust, red eye, or scratches.- MrX 17:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I never thought that looked like smoke coming out of his ear. We're going to get a new, official White House photo of him in a little over a month. That will go in the infobox. Until then, patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I never noticed that until someone pointed it out (and Kryn, you commented in the RfC that you didn't either). I think we're fine provided (1) we don't add the caption, "Trump with blurred text behind him that is not smoke coming out of his ear" and (2) Trump supporters don't go viral with a "Wikipedia's chosen image of Trump is one that shows smoke coming out of his ear" campaign, thereby further proving Wikipedia's out-of-control liberal bias. This is textbook editor overthink. In any case, the smoke "problem" was raised in the RfC and the RfC failed nevertheless. It has received due process and it's time we dropped the infobox image issue, at long last. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't notice it until it was pointed out in the Rfc, but then there it was. I don't really care, and actually like it like that, but am thinking of the site rep. Dropping it now though (but it will still make me smile when I see it). Randy Kryn 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I never noticed it, but I have noticed a YEAR of arguments about the infobox photo. I hope it stops when Trump is president, but maybe it won't. Maybe the fact is that he's not photogenic.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

I'd like to change the picture of Donald Trump to make it look more presidential and professional unlike his current portrait which looks mediocre and unkempt. Ryke6171 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump is a former Democrat?

I am not aware of this fact or any RS supporting this. As far back as the 1980s he has been involved in the Republican party and described by commentators as a conservative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI

45.58.89.66 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

For a start, look at the first two cited sources in the article. General Ization Talk 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Image in infobox

A 30-day RfC on that issue just closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose to change the image in the infobox from the current File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg to File:Donald Trump (29273256122) - Cropped.jpg. The latter image provides a better frontal view of Trump's facial features, with his eyes fixed on the camera lens and not elsewhere. This might involve major restructuring of articles due to the change of the unofficial portrait, yet until the official portrait will be released after Trump's inauguration, I believe we will be better off using this image. Von Sprat (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A 30-day RfC on that issue just closed. See #Current consensuses and RfCs above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Can't we all just wait five weeks until the federal government releases his official portrait? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Our quota is two concurrent RfCs on his image. (Sorry, long day.) Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
More to the point, Muboshgu, hard-fought consensuses should stand uncontested for awhile so we can get other things done. In this case, "awhile" reasonably means until the official portrait is released, even if that takes four months. With respect, your question, by inviting responses and responses to those responses, effectively re-opens an issue that has been resolved. I submit that my comment was all that was necessary or appropriate, and I wouldn't object if someone else hatted this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)

Hatting. This is nothing but armchair psychology and borderline BLP violations. We are not going to be including any of this in the article and the discussion is venturing far afield. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have come across hundreds of newspaper articles and intervews where the claim is made that Trump is a narcissist and/or has NPD. In newspapers, many psychiatric professionals have diagnosed Trump as having NPD. It is difficult to avoid this angle when discussing Trump. Surely it must at least be viable to cover Trump's perceived narcissism in Wikipedia - as narcissism is not necessarily pathological - more of a character trait. At least two of Trump's Republican rival candidates accused Trump of being a narcissist. I heard Bruce Springsteen in an intervew accusing Trump of being a narcissist. Ideally this narcissism angle deserves a separste section somewhere. --Penbat (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this adds encyclopedic content to the article, no matter how many people believe it. It's not like observing that FDR was in a wheelchair -- closer to when Rubio indicated Trump's small hands, for which the Senator later apologized. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
That is an apples to oranges comparison. Small hands presumably would not significantly affect the president-elect's performance and judgment as president. Narcissism and NPD most certainly could be expected to do so, presumably what the sources mentioned by the OP are saying. General Ization Talk 16:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. Analogies aside, WP should be reporting rather than predicting Pres. Trump's performance and judgment. So, for example, we might cite sources that document experts' concern that he declines to attend presidential security/intelligence briefings and explains this by saying he's "a smart guy". On the other hand an encyclopedia should not present subjective assessments of his cognitive or emotional processes, e.g. he doesn't value expert advice because he has narcissist personality disorder, where they don't add to the factual narrative. SPECIFICO talk
The encyclopedia should be prepared to present "subjective assessments of his cognitive or emotional processes" made by and attributed to acknowledged experts in the field, and should not suppress these opinions. General Ization Talk 16:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
"[M]any psychiatric professionals" is a very general description of those who may have made this claim. Are there any acknowledged experts on NPD who have done so? This would have to be extremely well sourced and presented neutrally, presumably with in-text attribution. General Ization Talk 16:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As for Springsteen and Trump's Republican rivals: because narcissism is both a clinical term and a popular one, and the popular definition is not always consistent with the clinical definition, I would say that no, their claims do not belong in the article as the speakers are not psychiatric professionals and hence are unqualified to make a clinical diagnosis. I would stay away from trying to make a distinction here between "perceived narcissism" and the clinical term, as that is a very slippery slope. We have an article for that, which is constrained by WP:MEDRS. General Ization Talk 16:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
everyone who tries to be leader of a country is a puppet or a narcissist, sometimes maybe both. Idiot "psychologists" think this is some breaking news or genius insight, "people who see themselves as the one person able to lead millions of other people have high view of themselves". wow!!! KMilos (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with you that some degree of narcissism is a typical trait of government leaders. I assume that the sources referred to by the OP are indicating that the degree of narcissism reflected by our subject is atypical, and if so, and the sources are experts, that is a notable observation. General Ization Talk 16:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
See the [Goldwater Rule]. Basically this states that one should not opine on the psychiatric makeup of a person you haven’t examined, and without authorization. So, we have a problem on quoting experts in the field of psychology on this subject as they might be violating the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. And, as KMilos says above, there’s nothing surprising about a presidential candidate being narcissistic. (Personally, I think anyone that wants to be president, shouldn’t be allowed.) Also, NPD sounds like a mental illness, when I think it’s really just a character formation. Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The Goldwater Rule governs the actions of psychiatric professionals, not editors of encyclopediae or the press generally. If, hypothetically, psychiatric professionals are sufficiently alarmed by their observations of our subject to speak out and risk censure by their profession, and those opinions are reported by reliable, published sources, we should be doubly prepared to include this information in our article. We do not have any responsibility to protect published speakers from the effects of their speech. General Ization Talk 17:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If it governs the professionals who would be considered competent experts and they violate this principle then WP should not consider their casual statements to be expert statements suitable for an encyclopedia. This just sounds like a smear. It's name-calling. If his doctor tells us he has a certain disability, that will be different. The doctor will specify the disability, document it, and relate it to evidence. In that case, WP can link to the disorder and readers can understand the assertion that's being made. But that's not what's being proposed here. We can't just attach casual language to a person's biography. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Please define "casual" (a term you just introduced) in this context. We are not talking about comments a psychiatrist may have made to their barber. If published in mainstream sources, risking, as others have proposed, possible censure by the profession, I would not regard such statements as "casual", and rather would assume the speakers are highly motivated to be heard as broadly and clearly as possible. General Ization Talk 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely. Also, many respected sources consider him "mean spirited" and immoral, so we should include that as well. These traits define the man, so they should be in the first sentence... I propose: "Donald John Trump (US Listeni/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is a mean-spirited, narcissistic, amoral, intolerant, insulting, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, cheating, lying American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States." That's a good start. If anyone else can come up with other terms to describe what a monster he is, I would welcome those additions too! Marteau (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP (and other policies) there's pretty much no way you can include any of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite a number of articles were written about Trump and NPD, including articles about why mental health professionals cannot and should not diagnose people they have not examined. Whether or not the issue should have been raised, it was, and therefore there are no MEDRS objections to mentioning them, so long as per weight we explain the limitations. MEDRS merely prevents us from saying as a fact that someone has NPD. I find however that at present the issue is too trivial to mention in the main article. Many successful politicians and business leaders show symptons of personality disorders,[1] so there is no reason to mention it in this article unless it becomes a big issue. TFD (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I myself suffer from Carefree Nonplanfulness! Thanks for the link. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you also need to have other things to be a psychopath like extroversion and lack of empathy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Working on it... SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a licensed mental health professional, it is highly unethical to make or suggest a diagnosis like this from watching him on teevee. You'd need a legitimate diagnostic interview to do this. It's no more acceptable than Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo on the Senate floor. We should not engage in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely that we should not "engage in this". That is not the question. The question is whether we should reflect reliable, published sources quoting experts (assuming there are experts) who have already done so, whether or not we as editors perceive their having done so as ethical behavior. This seems to me to fall squarely under WP:NPOV. General Ization Talk 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is that those "experts" should know better than to do what they're doing, and we should ignore it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So we should not report on published statements by experts when we as editors think they should have known better than to make them? I can see a whole lot of recovered disk space once this principle has been applied to the entire Wiki. General Ization Talk 18:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
These experts are not expert on Trump, if they haven't had a one-on-one diagnostic interview with him. Which I doubt. Otherwise they're speculating and arm-chair psycholigizing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The Terri Schiavo case article mentions that Bill First diagnosed Terri Schiavo on the Senate floor. Are you going to remove that from that article? TFD (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Did I say that? Given the way the Schiavo situation transpired, that was a major event in the timeline. People suggesting Trump has NPD fits nowhere in the timeline of major events. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
IOW MEDRS is a red herring and the issue is weight, just as in the Terri Schiavo case. Which is what I said. TFD (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Frist's "diagnosis" of Schiavo should be treated as dubious at best (I haven't read the article to see how it's framed). But it was a major event in the situation, and has weight. Armchair psychiatrists talking about Trump's narcissism should have no weight, because they don't have any bearing on anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If professionals speculate without examination, we should give it as much weight and article space as if I did so. I.e., none. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

People, dont get bogged down on the NPD angle. The narcissism angle is more promising for Wikipedia. Narcissism is more of a character trait and is not necessarily pathological. It's quite legitimate to talk about Trump's perceived narcissism. This has nothing to do with giving him diagnostic labels.--Penbat (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it's politically-motivated name-calling. If we go down that road, much work is needed in other politicians' articles, starting with Hillary Clinton. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! It's totally inappropriate to speculate upon and politically motivated. Perhaps reminding the Hillary partisans about all of the things that could go into her article in this vein is a good approach to this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been widely discussed by reliable sources for a long time, and it's clearly relevant and should be included. The question is not whether to include it, but how we best do it. It is not unethical in any way to analyze the world's most influential people; for example the article Adolf Hitler discusses various views of health professionals that Hitler suffered from e.g. borderline personality disorder and a long list of other conditions, even though these health professionals didn't personally examine him. In the case of a President of the United States, or another hugely important leader of a country, the material is so overwhelming that it is possible for experts to offer professional opinions, and in this case, those opinions have received more than sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Godwin interval: 4:50. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Internet humour terms aside, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that under Wikipedia policies, it is perfectly legitimate to include professional views on the character traits and/or mental health of a world leader, as long as those views are adequately (which means very extensively in such a case) covered by reliable sources. We even have a whole article devoted to the psychopathography of Adolf Hitler and I suspect we will very soon have a similar article devoted to Trump as well, as this topic appears to be a huge one with very extensive discussion in RS. --Tataral (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It's more than humor, it actually has a point. It remains to be seen whether comparison to the Hitler article is apt or relevant to this discussion. If Trump starts WW III as a result of his extreme nationalism and thirst for power, committing genocide against millions of Mexicans and Muslims, we can bring Hitler into it. Until then, that's hyperbole that has no place in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears that you are very familiar with men made out of straw. As any serious person can see from the above comment, the issue is not a general comparison of Trump and Hitler or a comparison of their policies, but whether Wikipedia can include analysis of personality traits and mental health of very powerful world leaders. The answer is yes, as long as it's covered (adequately) in reliable sources. There are many other articles on world leaders which include this kind of analysis too. The insistence of some editors that the experts cited are required to have examined the world leader personally is a form of IDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you making the same argument at Hillary Clinton? I don't see that. Plenty of negative things said about her have been covered (adequately) in reliable sources, and yet have been omitted from the article on the basis of editorial judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There are many other articles on world leaders which include this kind of analysis too. Generally decades or centuries after their death and with a thorough examination of their time in office. Certainly not before they’ve taken office. The insistence of some editors that the experts cited are required to have examined the world leader personally is a form of IDONTLIKEIT. Well, the American Psychiatric Association suggests that this is a form of unethical behavior. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
See Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Actions which the APA once held to be unethical are now a legal mandate in many states. Ethics are not static, and evolve over time given history and experience. In any case, as I have already pointed out several times, the APA does not govern our actions here, and if professionals subject to the APA's tenets and guidelines choose to ignore them and speak out on a particular topic, that may itself be a notable event. General Ization Talk 22:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
That's one viewpoint, and not wrong on its face. Another is that mental health professionals are not created equal, and those who show disregard for established ethical guidelines of their own profession should not be treated as reliable sources. The statements are notable for their lack of credibility. I do not propose that APA or anybody else govern our actions. I feel an RfC coming on. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If a certain country requires health care professionals to behave in a certain way, that has no bearing on whether Wikipedia can report on their views. Analysis of personality traits of influential world leaders is quite common (the US government for example has evaluated Putin from a mental health perspective) and there are no policy-based arguments against including it if it is reliably sourced and relevant. --Tataral (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Muboshgu, Objective3000 and Mandruss here: armchair psychological evaluations have no place in a WP:BLP. And I remind editors peddling the Hitler scare that BLP restrictions apply to Talk pages as well. — JFG talk 23:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500

Clear consensus that the county information is undue in Trump's bio. Such details are in the 2016 election page, where they belong. — JFG talk 07:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

This must be included as well: Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500, Winning 83% Of The Geographic Nation.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.159.75 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We would have to include not only the statistic but also the reason why (that writer feels) it's significant: "The president-elect accomplished something unprecedented by ranking in the top three most popular candidates while maintaining a drastic county-level lead over Clinton." My opinion: Yawn. Oppose per WP:DUE, barring more RS coverage, at least in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the story originated on Inquistr, a news aggregator that looks like a gossip site. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment There are numerous items in the biography where we don't express "the reason why that writer feels it's significant". Also, this is not "gossip", this is fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, though Clinton's counties are a majority of the population and 2/3 of the GDP (not all counties are created equal, after all). But none of that is here nor there. Getting into the weeds of who voted how and where might be appropriate to one of the election sub-articles, but I can't imagine it being prominent enough to justify inclusion here. Dragons flight (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Los Angeles County has 9.8 million residents. Loving County in Texas has 82 residents. Difficult to find meaning is such a stat. Objective3000 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the first place, this is meaningless. We do vote by states, but we do not vote by counties (some of which have a larger population that some states). In the second place, this statistic has not been widely reported by Reliable Sources and thus does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Counties are not units of the electorate.- MrX 16:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to make that argument, neither is the popular vote...ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For stats lovers, there are plenty of beautifully-detailed maps at United States presidential election, 2016#Maps. For the Donald Trump main bio, this is undue. — JFG talk 16:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This was reported on a national level by numerous reliable sources, including CNN, Washington Post, Fox, Huffington Post, et all and is a revealing demographic, as is our coverage of the popular vote. We have a dedicated section for Protests, which had nothing to do with election results either, yet we're being told we can't even mention this demographic in the election section, made for the express purpose of covering the election and notable topics related to it? In main articles we cover the notable facts -- if there is a sub-article for the topic, we cover it in depth, which doesn't mean we can't even mention it here. Again main articles and sub articles commonly have a certain amount of informational overlap. We can't keep blocking things in this biography simply on the basis that there is a sub-article for it. If this idea was practiced on such a basis consistently then this biography would be reduced to a few short paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not important for this article. For this article, the facts needed are: 1. He won EC. 2. More voters (2.5 million) voted for Clinton. Casprings (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment Winning the vast majority of the counties across the nation is a fact, and a revealing demographic, as is the popular vote. "Not important" is an opinion. If such facts are reported nationally by numerous reliable sources than we can do so. We'll need more than personal opinion to block this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment How about more versus less commented on by WP:RS. It is certainly true the urban versus rural divided has been commented on. See the NY Times The Election Highlighted a Growing Rural-Urban Split. However, the commentary is about the division within the US. The fact that more voters wanted Clinton has been produced multiple pieces of commentary regarding the legitimacy of the EC and the fact that the result is undemocratic. See, here or here. I do not deny that the urban versus popular vote divide is important in an article on the election. But for this article, the fact that more voters wanted someone else is important because it hits at fundamental questions about the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency. Moreover the amount of people who wanted someone else (2.5 million) is historic.Casprings (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Casprings: Wikipedia is not the place to call the US electoral process "undemocratic". This is outrageous and totally undermines your argument. — JFG talk 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree, with JFG here. Though you opposed inclusion, I thank you for your comments here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@JFG: To say that a process that allows someone with less votes to assume an office is undemocratic is a statement of fact. The power of the office and the amount of the difference(2.5 million) makes that fact historic and significant.Casprings (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Not by definition. Which makes it a political opinion and not proper to state here. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
See DemocracyCasprings (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Read the first sentence. Parliamentary governments are democratic. But, the people do not directly elect the PM. Governments where the head of state is directly elected by a popular vote are rare. Objective3000 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Even in a British style first past the post election system, it would be extremely rare for the party that received less votes to elect the PM. With the type of margin in this election, it would not happen.Casprings (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
And it is rare here, which is why it's important to mention the pop vote in the lead. In Israel, it's not at all rare. But, were getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Casprings: At first I thought you were partisan, now it occurs to me that you may just be uneducated, which is an easier problem to solve. If you are an American citizen, go read about the history of your country. If you are not, I recommend Tocqueville's historic essay De la démocratie en Amérique (1835) where this French aristocrat praised the nascent United States for their admirable practice of democracy, which frankly the French had botched at the time (bloody revolutions, unstable republics, Napoleon's empire, return of monarchy…). The Electoral College was already there. Direct election by nationwide popular vote is *not* the dominant form of democracy, nor should it be, as it over-represents the already-dominant sectors of a polity. I could quote many faults of the US democratic system; this is not one of them. — JFG talk 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Editorial discretion via consensus is what determines what goes in the article. This quirky piece of data has almost zero relevance to Trump's bio because elections are not decided by who won the most counties, the most cities, or the most corn fields. This is nothing more than trivia.- MrX 18:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Counties enormously vary in physical size (28 sq mi to 20,000 sq mi) as well as population (82 to 9.8 million). Some counties contain multiple cities, some no cites, New York City (not counting suburbs) is in five counties. Over 100 counties have a larger population than the state of Wyoming. Two states don't even have any counties. Historically, a county was a jurisdiction under a count. Basically, the term is too fuzzy to have any statistical meaning. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The vast majority of the country is comprised of counties. Consensus can't go against policy, esp NPOV. The national media, used to cite "denial" claims, didn't think it was "fuzzy" and presented the idea as a revealing demographic which helps to explain where most of Trump's and Clinton's voters reside. This info should be welcomed. So far it appears that most of the reasons to block this perspective is because of opinion, i.e."quirkey, fuzzy". We're supposed to be writing for an encyclopedia where the more intelligent and inquisitive reader comes for information, not for 'People' magazine. No solid reason has been presented to exclude this perspective from the Election ' section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Consensus can't go against policy, esp NPOV. Consensus decides what goes against policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
So if five editors want to put a picture of Santa Clause in place of Trump's picture and three do not... Ho ho ho?? I don't think so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean a direct count of !votes. Wikipedia is clearly not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Objective3000 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
If five editors propose to use a picture of Santa Clause [sic] in the infobox, let us know and we can go from there. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, O'3000. Yes, other factors must be considered besides 'democracy'. Like NPOV, policy overall, balance and inclusion of 'all' the important facts. Seems like several are missing in the Climate change section (and elsewhere), smoothed over by obtuse, misleading and highly opinionated POV terms like "denial". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In terms of elections, counties are not a very meaningful political boundary other than election boards. MSAs would be better imho. But I've not seen this county factoid widely covered by the RS, unlike the popular vote. On that alone, inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This sounds like a way to make it seem like the election was a blowout for Trump, when it wasn't. Not every county has the same population. According to the 2010 census, Los Angeles County, California has 9,818,605 people, while Loving County, Texas has 82 people. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment An additional problem here is lack of context. Do we know how the counties split in 2012? In 2008, 2004, 2000? Do we know if this result is unusual or commonplace? Personally I suspect they ALWAYS split heavily toward the Republican candidate; that's just the nature of our electorate and our geography. In any case, this statistic is worthless without any information about whether it is historic or routine. That's in addition to the fact that it means nothing anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Repubs have won supermajorities of the counties in recent decades, since they are currently the preferred party of the non-urban-core voter (broad brush here), but historically the dems were that party (e.g. dem-nom William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska was a champion of the poor indebted midwestern-and-southern[3] farmer), with *repubs* being the urban-coast-party -- NYC was a repub stronghold until "recently". The counties-won-percentage is an indicator of party strength more than candidate-strength (especially at the state-by-state-level), but can sometimes be illuminating.[4][5][6][7] But of course there are also plenty of incorrect datasets out there, which magnify the demographic differentials.[8] So to partially answer your question, in 2008 it was around~72% of the known-counties for McCain,[9], in 2012 it was around~78% for Romney, whereas in 2016 it was around~83% for Trump. I'd be more interested in seeing the totals for Reagan and for FDR, but didn't find those in a quick search (propublica only gives maps sans the datasets that I could tell). Valuable info methinks, but more for an article comparing party strengths across the years, not for a biographical article about one candidate. Of course, I also think the "by over 2.5 millions votes" stuff is pretty silly for a biography article on the opposing candidate; the numeric value is not very relevant, since if the rules were different then the campaigns would have been run differently and the outcome under such counterfactual conditions is pretty much impossible to predict.[10] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. So that suggests that, using the three data points we have, this election merely continued the straight-line trend toward Republican dominance on a county-by-county basis. (72-78-83) In other words, nothing startling or historic. And not a statistic that has been collected, or talked much about, over the history of the country. Because (I'll say it again) it isn't meaningful. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Except that the popular vote 1) has only given a different result from the Electoral College (and thus actual) result five times in the history of the Republic, and 2) is being widely, widely reported - as opposed to this county stuff, which may have been mentioned here or there when the pundits ran out of other things to talk about. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - yah, this is a noted item, particularly in trying to explain the surprise win, and noting the division oddity about the election that even in the 20 vs 30 states she won like California she lost most of the counties, and/or that even in Republican strongholds like Texas she was surprisingly close, a narrative that it was a strongly cities versus rural division. But really I think this is about the same boat as Electoral vs Popular -- all this stuff should get be in the election article and not the Trump article. But if this article is going to include those items then yes include this part too. Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment : Facts are neutral in of themselves. Where are you getting "manufactured statistic" from? (Answer please.) Again, mentioning the counties Trump won are an informative demographic revealing to the reader that many of Clinton's votes came from urban and inner city areas. The 'counties won' by Trump and Clinton can be mentioned with just a sentence. Why would you want to keep this perspective from the readers? So far the reasons to oppose are wholly academic and opinionated. e.g."not neutral" and the "manufactured" claim seems to be manufactured itself. Again, if this methodology continues and prevails in the narrative we'll have to tag the entire article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Gwillhickers, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Possibly also WP:FLOG. Trump won the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote by 2.5 million, making completely unsubstantiated claims about "millions" of fraudulent voters in the process. Those facts are notable and worthy of inclusion. The fact that Trump won the rural vote and lost the urban vote is worthy of inclusion. The fact that Trump won thousands of counties when many of them have populations smaller than some apartment buildings really isn't notable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment : -- "Not notable" is clearly an opinion, esp since this cross section of national demographics was covered by national media. Yes, some counties have smaller populations, many of the ones Trump won do not. Remember we are writing for an encyclopedia where the more intelligent and inquisitive reader comes for neutral information. If they want a source that preaches to members of their particular choir they can go elsewhere. Anyone who is interested in where the votes came from, and there are no doubt many, would welcome this information, and it can be easily covered with just a statement in the Election to the Presidency section which is rather short to begin with. To be fair and neutral we need more than the claim that this info is "not notable" from those so intent on blocking this information, esp since there is a section dedicated to Trump's election. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as possibly well-intentioned highlighting of a "first" factoid. There have only ever been, I think, 60 (?) U.S. Presidential elections. That being the case, it seems to me that any reporter willing to expend the time and effort to find them would be able to find some "first" of some sort for either side in this election. I tend to think any such information, which relates to both candidates, is probably better placed in one of the articles on the election itself, rather than in the biographical articles of any of the individuals involved, unless the factoid is more freakish than virtually any I have seen so far, like, maybe, the first president of an alien species or something like that. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as the number of counties won is misleading. Kalawao County of Hawaii, which has only 89 people, will have just as much weight in county count as Los Angeles County, which has 10.17 million people. Also, inclusion of number of counties won does not make sense geographically, as the smallest county by area (Falls Church of Virginia, which is actually a county equivalent) has just 2 square miles, while the largest county by area (Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area of Alaska, another county equivalent) has 147,800 square miles. Definitely oppose. --Proud User (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

After 14 days, I count 13–2 Oppose, not counting the OP who did not make an argument. Unless someone wants to claim that those 2 have stronger arguments than the 13, and request an uninvolved closer, I will close this in a day or two as "consensus to omit". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction: According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure, an uninvolved closer is required. These things often just go to archive without a declaration of consensus, and then are cited later as showing consensus, but I feel that practice just invites conflict. I therefore request any uninvolved editor to close this. They may wish to then add an entry at #Current consensuses and RfCs; otherwise I or someone else can do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion, User:Mandruss, but I disagree that an "uninvolved closer is required". The "Closure procedure" you cited said that an uninvolved administrator is required for discussion which "are particularly contentious or unclear", and that requests for an independent closer should be made at ANRFC "Where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications." None of those things appear to be the case here. I really think that any one of us, even those who have participated in the discussion, could close this 13-2 discussion, and I encourage you to do so. If you hesitate to do so, I will. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Looked out the window and it's snowing. This isn't close. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: What you describe may or may not be common practice, but it's not how I read the above-linked guidance. 1. It begins with "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins," emphasis theirs. 2. The "contentious or unclear" reference is about requests at ANRFC. Consensus is not about numbers, and it's at least theoretically possible that 2 editors could have stronger arguments than 13 others, hence the need for uninvolved. I am therefore hesitating to do so, so have at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, according to Wikipedia:Closing discussions, "Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious…. When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion…. It may be useful to close Requests for comments." I note that this discussion was not a WP:Request for comment so formal closure is not required. I will just summarize, acknowledging my own role as a discussant: This discussion ran for 10 days and has had no additional comments for the last 5 days. Consensus is clear: by my count there are 14 saying "don't include this information" and 3 saying "include it." I will exclude my own !vote and tally 13 to 3. That is a clear consensus against including this particular item in the article. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I doubt if it is necessary to list this at "Current consensuses and RfCs" - because I doubt it will come up again. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, "consensus is not about numbers" is a widely-held misconception and I stand corrected. I concede that it would be impractical to uninvolved-close every discussion that reached a consensus, but the p&g would benefit from clarification on this.
I think the list should include all consensuses, not just those that some feel are likely to come up again. We have room. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation

Why did you archive the entry on pronunciation, which doesn't have any answers at all? Since Trump himself clearly doesn't exhibit the cot–caught merger, it should be debated what the IPA should be handled. --2.245.84.167 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Politician

Obviously Trump is now a politician. In fact, it is now his defining characteristic. I'm surprised this was not already in the article, since he effectively became a politician as soon as he began campaign, and particularly after winning an election and appointing staff. He's also run for office before, so this is fundamentally a no-brainer. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

But then ALL US presidents would be politicians. If so, then it is redundant. It would be like saying "Bill Clinton was an American President of the United States." or "Bill Clinton was President-Elect and President of the United States". Perhaps a good way to decide if all Presidents should be called politicians is to discuss this with some WikiProject. It would be more useful to Wikipedia if those with a series of political offices or long standing political office becomes noted as a politician in Wikipedia. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
All U.S. presidents ARE politicians, as are all elected officeholders, and all presidents are already described as such in the lede sentence. See George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. For some reason it is currently missing from Barack Obama but I have proposed adding it, to be in line with the other such articles. As for why we have both "politician" and "president": politician is a description of what they do (like artist or teacher or actor), which we always put in the lede sentence. President is a temporary title. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
ERROR by MelanieN I just looked up 3 presidents and find that none of those 3 have the title "politician" in the lede. See George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If you look at those three articles, you will see the word "politics" used liberally. Perhaps when Trump goes down in history to the extent of these three, you will see a different description at the top of his BLP. (Sorry, that was a tad snarky.) Objective3000 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I just looked up a 4th presidential article, Andrew Jackson. He is an American soldier and statesman, not listed as "politician". In addition, Jackson is controversial and hated by some, like Trump. In fact, Jackson is going to be expelled from the $20 bill. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
How about "all U.S. presidents from the past 200 years", would that be more acceptable? I haven't personally checked all of them, it's possible one or two omit it. But things - politics - were rather different in this country 200 years ago. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It WAS in the article (see the section above, "Titles for Trump"). People keep removing it and adding other things. It's supposed to be just "businessman and politician". --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That could either mean that there is a consensus not to have it, agents of the Trump campaign are doing it, agents of the Hillary campaign are doing it, the Russians are doing it, or, as mentioned, there is Wikipedia consensus not to do it. I don't have strong feelings either way but am leaning towards not having it because Trump is among the people with the least rationale to be given the occupation of politician, along with Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarz-whatever. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please omit the conspiracy theories. Consensus rules here. As for Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, you will find "politician" in the lede sentence of both of their articles. "Politician" is not an insult. It is simply what we call someone who runs for and wins elective office. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Usernamen1, you have removed it and replaced it with "real estate developer" a second time. Basically because you like it and regardless of what consensus says. This is absolutely against Wikipedia policy and particularly against the special rules that are in place at this article. I will explain those rules to you at your talk page. Meanwhile, somebody please remove "real estate developer" which has no consensus at all, restore "politician" which does have consensus in the article above, and fix the invisible comment which Usernamen converted into a POV argument. I have already made this change once so I can't do it again per 1RR, but I request someone to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN has written " People keep removing it and adding other things" which means that there is a consensus for change. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Done Objective3000 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Objective. Usernamen, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. It means that it has to be discussed and consensus reached. The fact that it gets changed (usually by people who haven't read and didn't participate in the discussion) does not overrule a consensus on the talk page. And it certainly doesn't allow people to make changes just because they like it better some other way. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

compromise proposal

Rather that say "is", "is not", "is so", "is not", I've thought of another idea. Trump is definitely not a career politician. The people in Africa or a little kid in America might get the wrong idea if we call Trump a politician and businessman.

What compromise prose might be more accurate is that he became a politician late in life after a life long real estate career. That would differentiate him and inform the reader better compared to someone who held political office for 3 decades and is the career politician.

Similarly, we don't call Trump an author or a hotelier because even though he's done it, it has been a small time portion of his life. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump does blur the definition of the word. We don't call Ross Perot a politician anywhere in the article, let alone in the first paragraph, and getting elected doesn't make the difference in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
He is a politician by definition. We've already had this discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't fit these definitions very well (except for perhaps the pejorative sense 2b, which would violate WP:NPOV), and WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I realize WP is not an RS; but he fits: Politician. Objective3000 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You nailed it. My dictionary Trumps your Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Consistency proposal is a failed proposal (and my Perot argument is not about a need to be consistent between articles). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss, according to "your dictionary", a politician (#1 definition) is " a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government". What is he doing right now, if not actively (preparing to) conduct the business of a government? What will he be doing for the next 4 years, if not that? --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
He ran for political office, took part in numerous political debates, is filling political positions, will hold the highest political office in the US, is talking to political leaders around the world – at some point you don’t keep saying your aren’t a politician. And yes the term has pejorative definitions. So do terms like banker and landlord. We still use these terms. Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I think Usernamen1 has struck something useful... part of the problem with the current phrasing is that we say "Trump *is* a businessman and [also is a] politician who became potus-elect." But we could instead give the readership some temporal clues, and say "Trump is a businessman and is now a politician who became potus-elect." Trump refused to *consistently* classify himself as a politician, throughout most of his campaign, but at several points gave explicit self-identification: [11][12][13] There is actually a Reliable Source which has considered whether or not potus-elect Trump is, or is not, actually a politician.[14] Plus one borderline-case that is more editorial than think-piece.[15] And a quick search turns up that, at least as late as February 2016, Trump was still of two minds about the designation: "It takes guts [announcing a campaign for potus when you know other candidates and the media will attack you]. Especially if you're not a politician. Now, I'm not a politician, thank goodness. I guess now I am but I'm not, OK? I don't want to be a politician."[16] However, during the general election debate against Clinton,[17][18] we have this fairly unambiguous quote: "I've gotten to know the people of the country over the last year and a half that I've been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I'm saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician,...." To be clear, I don't think we should say "was a businessman and is now a politician" because that would be incorrect -- he spent a lifetime being a businessman, in real estate and in publishing/television/etc, and although he is now (also) a politician that does not erase that he is a businessman still. I recommend adding some footnotes with the quotes I linked to above, at the end of the is-now-a-politician portion; that ought to help. But as I mentioned before when this topic came up, I think it is perfectly fine to simply say "is a businessman and potus-elect" which skips the part about being "is a businessman and (is now a politician and) potus-elect" by entirely cutting the transitional-phrase out. After all, it does not matter whether he is now a politician-and-potus-elect, or is now simply the potus-elect... either way, what matters from a geological perspective is that he is the potus-elect. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: We all know the facts given by MelanieN to be true. To answer her question, right now Trump is actively preparing to become a politician (namely, POTUS). Is he POTUS right now? If not, he isn't a politician right now. He's "expected" to become a politician on January 20, see lead sentence 2. The lead graf may accordingly be tagged for "confusing or unclear". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What is your proposal - that we don't say "politician" now but we do in a month? We have seen numerous links to where he himself said he guesses he is now a politician. He has spent the past year-and-a-half running for elective office, which even he has to admit is a political activity. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is up for debate. Since the moment he threw his hat in the ring, Trump has been a politician. He has done fundraising, written policy, received lobbying, run for office and won his election. He is a politician by every definition of the word. I can't see any reason to exclude this obvious description. And in case anyone is concerned, there are plenty of articles out there describing him as a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a fundamental human right to "not believe this is up for debate", Scjessey. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought ... and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom ... to manifest his religion or belief...." Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 18. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What on earth does any of that have to do with this discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Whether you "believe" this is up for debate has rather little to do with the discussion, actually. You brought it up, not me (I just supported your right to bring it up). If you review the discussion, you may change your belief. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

further compromise proposal

There are certain things that are of interest to the reader or a noteworthy fact. One is that Obama is the first African American president. Trump is a president (or will be) who has never held political office before. That is more informative than to argue that all presidents are politicians and, therefore, Trump should be called a politician and businessman. So consider working that in. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That is already in the lede - in the fourth paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Not sure what the point of this is. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
And that fourth paragraph lede sentence is full of errors. It claims Trump is the first individual not to have been in public office. How about George Washington? Remember him? The sentence says that Trump is the only one with no military service. Remember General Barack Obama or Admiral Bill Clinton or Captain Herbert Hoover who served in the military (none of them did)? There are probably more that didn't serve in the military. I am ashamed of this Wikipedia article.
The proposal is to amend that sentence and say that Trump was a politician that had never held elected public office before the Presidency. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You misread the sentence. It says "without ever having held public office or served in the military." Eisenhower, Washington, and Grant had never held public office, but they had served in the military. Many others never served in the military, but held public office. Trump appears to be the first with NEITHER in his background. And in any case, this does not belong in the lede sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to summarize

Usernamen1 challenged my claim that there is consensus for "businessman, politician, and the President-elect of the United States", and no other titles. So I reviewed all the discussions up to now (primarily "Titles for Trump" but also several later ones). I also counted it where I could identify someone who made a change in the article but did not discuss. Note that these discussions are "not a vote" and strength of argument is also important.

Politician:

  • People favoring "politician": 7
  • People opposing "politician": 4
  • People opposing "politician" now but accepting it in January: 1

Other titles:

  • People wanting only "Businessman" in addition to :"politician": 6
  • People favoring "businessman" without "politician": 2, so a total of 8 in favor of "businessman"

Other proposals instead of or in addition to "businessman":

  • "TV personality" 6
  • "real estate developer" 4
  • "actor" 3
  • "celebrity" 2
  • "author" 1

Conclusions: In addition to the numerical preference at this discussion for including "politician," we should consider the longstanding consensus that must lie behind the inclusion of "politician" in the lede sentence of every other president - even those who, like Eisenhower, spent most of their lives in another profession. I do think we have consensus for "politician".

As for what else to include: there is a strong consensus in favor of "businessman", with "television personality" also having a strong showing. There were several proposals for "real estate developer", but "businessman" has more supporters, and I doubt if we want to include both since they basically describe the same activity - with "businessman" also including his numerous other business activities such as branded products, beauty pageants, football, wrestling, etc.).

There were quite a few people favoring "television personality" - as many as favored politician. Should we add that, to make it "businessman, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States"?

There was little support for "actor", "celebrity", or "author". MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that there is a consensus for politician. There is no consensus but a slightly higher vote for politician. There is also more votes for TV personality than real estate developer but he done far more as a real estate developer than a TV personality.
I see that many want to call him politician so a compromise would be to state very, very early in the article lead that "Trump is a politician who had never served elected public office until the Presidency". Usernamen1 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why that is so important to you, that you feel obliged to get it into the lede sentence. It's true that Trump's supporters like to think of him as "not a politician", because that is how he ran (at least at first) - but he unquestionably is one now. Eisenhower's article does not make that distinction, not ANYWHERE in the lede section, even though he had never held elective office before becoming president. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that "television producer" would be less likely to get reverted than "television personality". --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I would also suggest giving encyclopedia britannica one of the not-votes, but I'm not sure how to interpret their stance.[19] They subtitle their article "Donald Trump: American real-estate developer and politician" but that subtitle-bit is not visible in the URL, and then in the body-prose they only say "Donald Trump, American real-estate developer who [snip biz highlights]. He was the Republican Party nominee for president in 2016. On November 8, 2016, Trump was elected president...." So they do call him a politician in the subtitle of the page, but they do NOT call him a politician in the introductory sentences. No mention is made of his entertainment sub-career (as personality/actor/producer/author/celeb/whatever). My vote is to either elide politician, and just say businessman and potus-elect, or if we MUST include politician in the intro-prose, to explicitly say that Trump is a businessman and is now a politician who became the potus-elect. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
But not "was" a businessman. He has made it clear he will continue to be a businessman while in the White House. But I note that Reagan and Eisenhower do not make the distinction between "formerly" an actor or general, and "later" a politician. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Not quite correct: Trump has in fact made it clear that he would totally stop being involved in his real estate empire, letting his executives and children fully manage the Trump businesses and brands. I still think he should be called a businessman, as he intends to run the United States like a business; he picked several business executives for his cabinet. — JFG talk 06:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
He's been in business for nearly a half-century, continues to talk about his businesses, they will be run by people he has appointed, he will continue to profit from them, and they are not going into a blind trust. Hard to avoid the word businessman. Objective3000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This really isn't difficult, guys. We have plenty of reliable sources to back up every conceivable permutation, so it falls upon us to find a consensus for language that seems appropriate. I would argue that we need only those descriptions that are defining characteristics of the subject. These are politician, businessman, and television personality (or television celebrity - whichever people prefer). The latter is important because it is his status as a TV personality that gave him the name recognition he needed to get his campaign rolling in the first place. Politician should come first, because that is what he is right now. The order of the other two is of little importance because they are equally significant biographically. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I Support the preceding. Television personality sense 4b: "a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>". Very commonly used and understood for its intended meaning—at least in American English, the dialect of this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we have consensus for "television personality" (a less loaded word than celebrity) and I will add it. As for putting "politician" first, it's true that is what was done at other similar articles such as Eisenhower and Reagan, and I will make that change also. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Appropriately worded for this C-class article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not true because Jeb Bush had far more name recognition in the primaries. The TV show "Apprentice" did not cause Trump to be President. Trump's name on so many buildings helped him as did his Twitter outburst. Believe me, Sad! Usernamen1 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to start over from scratch

The word "politician" is over used and redundant. Many users for the term have written or implied that all Presidents are politicians. If so, then choose either President or politician and use one. Since President is more precise and accurate, that should be used. In fact, unless one is a career politician, all the Presidential biographies should not have the word "politician". Anyone may copy this comment to other Presidential talk page biographies.

The word "businessman" is accurate but overly broad. The term "businessman" could apply to everyone from billionaire Bill Gates to some Uber driver. That is why further specification, whether billionaire or real estate developer is useful.

The use of the word "television personality" is a small part of Trump's occupation. Again, this would be undue weight if not balanced with what Trump's occupation is.

Each individual word cannot realistically achieve consensus because the final product must be seen. MelanieN writes that she (assuming that Melanie is not a "he" using a typically female user name) think "television personality" has consensus. That could cause the article to read "Donald Trump (1946-present) is an American television personality and 45th President of the United States" which is clearly a bad decision. Therefore, things have to be taken as a whole. Therefore, I declare that there is NO consensus until there is broad discussion on the whole of the sentence. Sorry to make such declaration but the logic behind it is sound. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To resolve this matter, there should be discussion as to the entire sentence, not just vote on individual titles in a vacuum. I will be so bold as to state that "President-elect" (to be replaced by "45th President of the United States") is an absolute requirement to any reasonable solution so it is included in all of the following choices. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 1 American politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 2 American businessman and President-elect of the United States
  • 3 American television personality and President-elect of the United States (the result that may happen if MelanieN's analysis is followed).
  • 4 American real estate developer, businessman, television personality and President-elect of the United States
  • 5 American billionaire, real estate developer, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States
  • 6 American real estate developer, television personality, and President-elect of the United States
  • 7 American real estate developer, businessman, and President-elect of the United States
  • 8 American real estate developer, author, educator, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States
  • 9 American real estate developer, businessman, producer, and President-elect of the United States
  • 10 American businessman, real estate developer, TV producer, and President-elect of the United States
  • 11 American CEO of a privately held company that has significant real estate exposure, politician, and President-elect of the United States
  • 12 American real estate CEO, politician, and President-elect of the United States
  • 13 others

There may be some merit to "CEO of a privately held company" because that can result in a different personality than one that leads one to become a CEO of a publicly traded Fortune 500 company like Microsoft or Chevron. This is an unorthodox wording and probably not my favorite. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support #2 – Cleanest and to the point. "Businessman" may be vague but if we want more precision, we's have to list too many activities, which would then have undue weight wrt to his upcoming presidency. The lead section and the article do provide enough coverage of his various business ventures, so that readers can quickly find what kind of a businessman he has been. "Politician" is indeed redundant with "President" and not an accurate description of his activity prior to this election campaign (he did dabble in politics by giving his opinion on political issues but he never acted in a political role, the closest to that being his two prior floated presidential runs which didn't materialize). Also you forgot "businessman, television personality and President-elect" as a viable option (which would be my second choice). — JFG talk 07:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No. The only one that makes any sense is politician, businessman, television personality and President-elect of the United States. "Businessman" covers the real estate developer aspect. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is evidence of inflexibility, battleground behavior, and being prone to edit warring. Consensus is achieved either falsely (by wearing out other editors and chasing them away) or by being able to live with more than only your opinion and choice. Scjessey writing that "the only one" that makes any sense is the wrong type of behavior. Even though I do not believe that "politician" is appropriate, there are certain combinations that would be more sensible than others. I will explain at the end of this section and not insert it in the middle. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and comment on the content, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Usernamen1, I see that you removed "television personality" from the article despite the discussion here. Please stop assuming that anything you disagree with, does not have consensus by definition. Your refusal to accept consensus is starting to be disruptive. This was discussed here at length; I evaluated the discussion and edited the first sentence based on that. We can continue to discuss it here, but is no need to start the discussion all over, or to introduce terms ("billionaire", "CEO") that nobody has suggested up to now. It is frankly dishonest for you to offer 11 choices that don't include "politician" and only one that does, and not even to offer the choice "politician, businessman, television personality and PEOTUS" which appeared to be the consensus here, or the previous wording "politician, businessman, and PEOTUS". I personally wasn't crazy about "television personality" but I bow to consensus; 6 people here suggested it so I added it; if additional discussion shows significant opposition to the term then I will remove it. "Politician" is supported not just by a majority here but by what appears to have been consensus at all the other presidential articles. There also appears to have been consensus, at the other presidential articles, not to clutter up the lede sentence of a president with other activities, unless some other activity was the dominant part of their life and their notability (actor for Reagan, general for Eisenhower). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I was accused by MelanieN immediately above of being "frankly dishonest". She didn't bother to expand on choice 13 so I will. Sorry if anyone misinterpreted my oversight (normal definition, not Wikipedia jargon) of other possibilities. So there are 10 choices listed with "politician" and anyone can suggest more Usernamen1 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 14 American businessman, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 15 American politician television personality and President-elect of the United States
  • 16 American real estate developer, businessman, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States (this order reflects the time spent doing each with the longest tenure first)
  • 17 American billionaire, real estate developer, businessman, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States (this might reflect what people think of him)
  • 18 American real estate developer, television personality, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 19 American real estate developer, businessman, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 20 American politician, television personality, author educator, real estate developer, author, educator, businessman, and President-elect of the United States
  • 21 American real estate developer, businessman, producer, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 22 American businessman, real estate developer, TV producer, politician and President-elect of the United States
  • 23 American real estate CEO, politician, and President-elect of the United States

This whole 23 versions thing is ludicrous. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Most of these proposals are non-starters. Here's the situation: President-elect needs to be in the first sentence. It is the most important thing about him right now. In a month it will be "45th president of the United States" which also has to go in the lede sentence. Most of the other president articles use the formula "is an American politician who was the XXth President of the United States," but that formula is necessary for them because of the different verbs ("is" vs. "was), and there are some here who strongly oppose a "is.. who is.." formula. So whatever other titles we put in the lede sentence, it should end "... and president-elect of the United States". And there should be only one (businessman) or at most two (television personality seemed to be the most popular) professions listed in addition to "politician". --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with politician being redundant because the only political office Trump has had is the Presidency. Other Wikipedia articles are different because the individual had numerous political offices before (Senator or Governor, mayor, etc.) and were career politicians. This problem is solved for Trump if politician is not in the same sentence as President-Elect. Since MelanieN want "president" to be the first sentence, then it should be (for good prose) "Trump (1946- ) is the President-Elect of the United States. He is an American plumber, artist, politician, whatever." Usernamen1 (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN's comment makes sense. I believe we have consensus that the sentence should include "businessman" and end with "P(E)OTUS". It currently has "television personality" and "politician" as well, which I would personally remove as being redundant with President (Trump is noted for being the first non-politician to be elected President in U.S. history). Perhaps we could just vote on the inclusion of each term, to avoid juggling 25 options which will lead nowhere? — JFG talk 22:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that there is even consensus on the above, although near-consensus is possible at this moment. The 25 options may seem unwieldy at first but looking at things in totality is more accurate than piecemeal.
A few days ago, I explained a new proposal of a two sentence structure in a subsection below. There is not a consensus nor is it logical to have "politician" and "president-elect" in the same sentence. It would be similar to writing "Trump is an American politician, author, and a citizen of the United States" because American and U.S. citizen is redundant. Similarly, the only experience Trump has as a politician is President-elect (and President). Now, I have suggested a thoughtful compromise that is far better prose. That is to separate politician from President-Elect. Just read below. Essentially, it is "Trump is an American real estate developer, businessman, television personality, and politician. He has been designated President-Elect (or similar wording)." Alternatively, "Trump is the President-Elect of the United States. He is an American real estate developer, businessman, etc...".
Not only does the 2 sentence structure eliminate redundancy within the same sentence but President-Elect is a title while the others are professions. That avoids a valid argument that the sentence reads "Trump is the former CEO of the Trump Organization, executive producer of Celebrity Apprentice, and President-Elect of the United States", which is a sentence with only titles.
I am editing for Wikipedia integrity and good articles, which is why I raise these redundancy issues. Don't oppose me but oppose bad prose that is not apparent to the non-critical eye.
When others agree on the wisdom on the 2 sentence structure to avoid redundancy, then you can debate the order of the professions, be it time spent, prestige, achievements, etc. To me, that is a much smaller issue. Businessman actually gives Trump more credit than deserves because he hasn't been a very successful a businessman (water, steak, Trump Univ.) other than real estate. So consider "real estate developer, politician, and television personality" unless you want to promote Trump as a bigger than life person. (This commentary should not be construed as support for "politician" if in the same sentence as "President-elect" because of redundancy reasons making it bad prose). Usernamen1 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Whether we write this with two sentences instead of one, there will still be a debate about calling Trump a politician independently of his presidential campaign and election. We should settle that before optimizing the prose. — JFG talk 07:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to return to existing discussion

In case I wasn't clear: I consider the new proposal of 12 options, most of them brand new and all of them completely ignoring the previous discussion, to be an unhelpful distraction. I encourage people to ignore these new options rather than try to choose among them. Commentary on the current lede sentence "American politician, businessman, and President-elect of the United States", or the one Usernamen deleted "American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States", or other tweaks, can continue below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully support the latter: "American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States." It ticks all boxes, it's neutral, well supported by sources and consistent with other articles on presidents and politicians in general. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd support this list although a bit long to my taste. However, I would submit that the natural order should be "businessman, TV personality, politician and PEOTUS". Seeing him labeled "politician" first is a bit jarring considering the reality of his life up until his recent campaign. — JFG talk 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Support the preceding, contrary to my earlier statement. The fact that "politician" is most recent does not make it most important in the totality of his life, especially considering that he will very likely cease being a politician in 4 or 8 years. Also, since "PEOTUS" is obviously an abbreviation for brevity here, I'll assume that "TV" is as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Yes, "TV personality" is supposed to read "television personality" if this title is adopted. — JFG talk 07:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
"Politician" should come first because that is Trump's current defining characteristic. Since he announced his campaign, he's been a constantly politicking politician, with all other roles being more or less sidelined. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scjessey: You are correct that Trump has been quasi non-stop "politicking" since he launched his campaign, however that still amounts to 18 months of his 70-year life. Not the dominant thing for his overall biography page. As an encyclopedia, we should not overly focus on current circumstances, no matter how overwhelming they sound. — JFG talk 07:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN call to ignore options is stifles true consensus. By considering the sentence in totality, there may be a true consensus. Considering only one word at a time risks a lop-sided result, such as "Trump is a TV personality and President-elect of the United States."

In the heated discussion, we have forgotten that some have advocated very redundant prose. We should all agree that "Trump is an American businessman, business person, and President-elect" is stupid because businessman and person are nearly the same. Now think of Trump's politician role. Was he US Senator from New York? Was he New York City Mayor? Was he First Lady in drag? No! Trump's only political job has been President-elect. So to say "Trump is an American politician, ..... and President-elect" is redundant and, therefore, bad prose.

I am very open minded. There are some who like the word "politician". Rather than fight, I offer a new alternative, alternative 24, which shows I am very open to discussion. Alternate 25 is to write "Trump is an American politician (and other stuff)" but end there. In another sentence, mention Trump is President-elect. That way, it provides further description, not a redundant sentence. Which sentence comes first should be an easier discussion. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? Usernamen1 (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an innovative and also logical idea. It would generate about 10 more options, making it 35 options. Here is a sample.
Donald John Trump (Listeni/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American real estate developer, businessman, television personality and politician. He is expected to take office as (change to "became" later) the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2017. See how less redundant that is compared to "Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American real estate developer, businessman, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States"? Usernamen1 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Absent reading any clear and convincing alternative, the bolded text is not my favourite but appears to address some of the redundancy concerns that I alerted the Wikipedia audience about. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we would be very lucky to get a 25% plurality out of 25 options, and no option with 75% opposed can be considered a consensus. Exercise in futility proving, once again, the age-old wisdom that "the perfect is the enemy of the good". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
That type of thinking resulted in Trump getting elected. Instead 25 options, think of 10 more. Then weed out the weakest. You'll be more likely to get a better result than a very short list for a complex issue. That would be like the Iranian nuclear issue; you only have two choices, an Iranian bomb or the US supplies Iran with aircraft carriers and stealth bombers. Likewise "Trump is an American television personality and President-elect" or "Trump is an author and politician" are both probably not a choice that people would like very much. We must strive very extremely good because like Trump or hate Trump, the presidential biography is supposed to be a good article or featured article eventually. Believe me, Sad! (last part is parody) Usernamen1 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
As I read you, what you're suggesting would require multiple rounds of !voting, probably at least three, with each round lasting at least a week. The last round should include only the leading two choices. That is the only objective way to "weed out the weakest". I am not opposed to such an approach, since, while it would take weeks, unlike other approaches it would at least almost guarantee a consensus at the end of that period. If that's what we're doing, we should stop diddling around and get it started. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it is quite objectively possible to get a settled answer from five options, or even 25 options(!), in a single round of voting, by using instant run-off voting, or by using ranked choice voting. There are a few municipal elections that are IRV, and just a few months ago Maine passed legislation to use a form of ranked-choice voting. We could also use the kind of approval voting that arbcom is elected with, see WP:ACE2016. The trouble is that wikipedia-talkpages are not very conducive to such advanced usage, and setting up securePoll or similar (as is done for the arbcom thing every year) or setting up a physical location (as is done in Maine and San Francisco and other realworld elections), is probably not worth it for a one-off. We could make it work, here on the talkpage, but it would be a bit of a mess getting the mechanics worked out. Probably not something worth attempting on an article like Donald Trump... but then again, *only* controversial articles with difficult disputes need this kind of multi-round-bangvoting, so maybe we should think about trying something a bit off-the-wall. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See related RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#All Presidents are politicians? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow! It sure would've been nice to know about this little bit of forum shopping a few days ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That RfC has been aborted, disregard. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
And then the discussion was "re-opened" by another editor without re-adding the {{Rfc}} and without removing the {{archive top}}. I am not going to try to sort out that mess. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Tudor style house

The NYTimes article that is being used as a source for the type of home Donald Trump grew up in, does not appear correct. This architecture style is not Tudor or mock Tudor. It seems very much colonial. I would like to remove the description of the house altogether, as it isn't accurate and uses a wiki link that is no where near close to what that house looks like. The edit would still mention the street and neighborhood. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct or not, it doesn't seem very relevant whether the house was mock Tudor, colonial, ranch, or Greek Revival. It might be significant if the style were American Shanty-Town Hovel. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Found a better source for the house: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/refinery29.com/donald-trump-grew-up-in-t_b_11203144.html The photo in the NYTimes was not accurate. And Mandruss, you do not own this article. The idea is to work together to make the article better, not deride someone's comments or dog their edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: After puzzling over this for almost 2 hours, I can only guess that you misread me. Especially given my last sentence, I thought it was clear enough that I propose removal of the mention of the house's style. That's been there for some time and, unless you added it, that suggestion is not about your edits or comments. I suppose I could have been explicit to avoid being misinterpreted. If I "dogged your edit" by adding a wikilink, I and others have been doing a hell of a lot of edit-dogging here and everywhere at Wikipedia.
If your criticism is of a more general nature, I'm more than willing to respond to your concerns on my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) SW3, the source you added, Huffpost based on a Realtor's description, says "Tudor". The attached photo does look like some kind of imitation Tudor. Wikipedia regards "mock Tudor" and "Tudor revival" as the same thing, since one redirects to the other. In any case there is nothing colonial about it. Thanks for providing a better reference to support "mock Tudor"/"Tudor revival". --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I found a source for the actual house, not the image of somebody's else's house that the NYTimes article shows. That's not Trump's house from his childhood. The HuffPost has the correct house and it is indeed the house Trump grew up in, and in fact, his mother continued to live there up until her death. The New York Times correctly called it a mock Tudor but failed to show an accurate photo of the house. The Wikilink for mock Tudor did not look anything like the colonial being showed in the NYTimes article and that is what prompted me to find the correct image. I hope this over explanation is helpful for you. Somewhere down the road, and hopefully soon, this article needs to brought up to at least Good Article standards. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. And looking back at the old NYT reference it clearly does show a colonial house. Either the NYT photographed the wrong house, or the Realtor is lying. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the botched cite and kept both houses; the family may have moved, as the smaller house is described as his "birthplace" whereas the other article mentions anecdotes from his childhood linked to the larger house. — JFG talk 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: How was the citation botched? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: You had mistakenly eaten up some of the article text into the <ref></ref>. No worries, that was an easy fix, and I added metadata to the citation while I was at it. — JFG talk 01:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for fixing that. I didn't notice it when I previewed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The Tudor house was built by Fred Trump in 1940, according to the Realtor's description. Trump was born in 1946. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
So it makes sense that he was born in this house built just 6 years before his birthdate, doesn't it? And possibly the family moved to the upscale house a few years later, which makes both sources correct, although conflating them would be WP:SYNTH. — JFG talk 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_40&oldid=1136669174"