Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

Definition of "occupation"

Re [1] and [2]

Since I see this error a lot in infoboxes, I think it's worth a bit of discussion. Consistency with incorrectness does not benefit the encyclopedia.

The Merriam-Webster entry for "occupation" is here. You will note that none of the senses refer to a title or specific position. The most applicable sense is 1b: "the principal business of one's life: vocation". The associated example is: "Teaching was her occupation", not "Geography teacher at Pleasantville Elementary School was her occupation".

If a businessman holds two business positions, we don't say that he has two occupations.

See Ben Bradlee for correct usage. Note that his occupation is shown as "newspaper editor", not "Editor of the Washington Post".

If anyone disagrees, I would very much like to hear their reasoning.

In Trump's infobox, I don't strongly object to showing specific positions after the occupation, in parentheses, as per status quo, although my preference would be to omit that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that occupation==vocation. If layout-space is at a premium, suggest that we do something with wikilinks like this:
That is 'misleading' since any elementary school children amongst the readership who literally have no idea what the english phrase 'real estate developer' means will be sent to the incorrect article. And there are also plenty of people who are international readers, and might not have English as a first language, that this technique could confuse. But I do think it would be better than saying "occupation: real estate developer (The Trump Organization), etc" and far less grammatically grating than saying "occupation: CEO of The Trump Organization, etc" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I care more about WP:EGG than you do, as those would be clear violations of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Current formulation looks like a good compromise between conciseness and clarity. I was guilty of an Easter-egg formulation earlier. — JFG talk 22:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyway it appears we have agreement on the definition of the word. I don't plan to add an entry to the consensuses list, as we don't need a consensus to observe the dictionary. Put differently, the dictionary entry represents a community consensus, that community being the English-speaking world. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Can I edit OUTBREAK (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No, only established users can edit this page - because of its controversial nature. But if there is something you think should be changed or added, suggest it here. If people think it is a good idea someone will add it for you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

The opening sentence of his wiki article states both politician and 45th President of the US. Why not simply: "...American businessman, television personality, and the 45th President of the United States." Tzhu07 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – This suggestion was debated extensively and the current exact phrasing is approved by consensus. See top of page, item 11. — JFG talk 01:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative way of mentioning Trump's children in the infobox

I just saw a very excellent example of children being mentioned on the "featured" Ronald Reagan article. In the infobox, only number of children is listed and an immediate see below redirecting to "Marriages and children". Most of the children are notable. Maybe we should do something similar here, after all it is an article about Donald Trump. Besides I don't think there is any need to mention their names in the infobox itself. This will solve the problem of non-notable children at the same time. I think it will be best to follow the style of a featured article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to have differing styles on different articles. Consensus is to include Barron. If you want to (God forbid) open another RfC, you can do so, but that would be unnecessary as the consensus is already clear. MB298 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." ―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a guideline, not a policy. We can cite it and choose to follow it, or we can decide it doesn't fit this situation. In this case there was extensive discussion (see above, "Current consensuses and RfCs", #10, for links to the discussions), and the consensus was to include a link to the "Barron" section of the family page. I personally don't see what is wrong with directing a reader to the information they are looking for, instead of making them search for it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the Reagan method cited by the OP. The guideline I cited refers to internal section links from the infobox, not links to sections in other articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are changeable unlike policies and rules made by Wikipedia. A featured article used links to sections within the article. So definitely there's nothing wrong in us using it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting it to a section of the article defeats the purpose of the infobox might as well remove it completely.Junkoo (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Note:This discussion has been pre-empted by an RfC immediately below. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

False edit summary (section moved up)

See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved back down. It doesn't belong in an RfC. See WP:TPG.- MrX 13:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether the word "false" is taken out of context from the sources

This edit summary is false: "No need for this and it's not a direct quote anyway; it is an editor's parsing of the article that seems intended to cast doubt on the content." Of course it's a direct quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If User:MrX is not interested in whether this was a direct quote (it absolutely was), then I will simply restore it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's worse than I thought. Not only is it not a single direct quote, it's actually the entire first sentence of the fifth paragraph, with ellipses added to make it look like the sentence continues, followed by the entire sixth paragraph. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton is introduced as if to say "well, Trump tells some falsehoods, but so does Hillary". Trump's telling of many falsehoods is referenced to several sources, not just PolitiFact. There is no legitimate reason to include these two excerpts from this one source in the citation template. The only reason I can fathom for including it would be to lead readers to a different conclusion than represented by the consensus text already in the lead.- MrX 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
So you admit that I was quoting directly from the cited source. And you admit that the cited source says "there's some context that's necessary here". But you, a Wikipedia editor, disagree with the reliable source that any context is necessary here. To which all I can say is that we're supposed to follow reliable sources rather than the contrary opinions of Wikipedia editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this sounds like user-talk argumentation about behavior, thus far, can I please request that Anythingyouwant and MrX post "please change XXX to YYY" type of information, which explicitly says what the content-dispute is about? Consensus version from December, change proposed by Anythingyouwant, change-if-different-from-December-consensus proposed by MrX. Perhaps I am too lazy to click the links provided, plus, I think that having some prose-options might help guide discussion into a more-fruitful pathway? Thank you 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

An existing footnote in the lead says this: Cillizza, Chris. "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false", The Washington Post (July 1, 2016). I am suggesting to include a quote at the end of the footnote: "Now, there's some context that's necessary here....Trump has been fact-checked 38 more times than Clinton. And, yes, PolitiFact was the one deciding what statements to fact check. This is not a comprehensive guide to the relative truthfulness of every word uttered by Trump or Clinton in this campaign. But, the number of times his statements have been ruled 'false' or 'pants on fire' is still substantially higher than it is for her."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with clarifying the totality of what the writer in fact said. Especially in a rarely-read citation |quote=. That would seem more consistent with NPOV; we are not required to stick to an anti-Trump narrative here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There is no need to include a quote about Clinton in a citation template when the referenced article text rightfully makes no mention of Clinton. Whether Clinton has made false statements is completely irrelevant to the documented fact that Trump has made false statements many times, and continues to do so.- MrX 14:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    Using the same logic, Trump supporters would exclude the same comments from Hillary Clinton because they refer to Trump. And in fact that WaPo piece is not cited in Clinton's article. If not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, what Wikipedia article is about both people and therefore a legitimate place for that quote? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    We are on the verge of mentioning in the lead of this article (not in a footnote) that Clinton got less than a majority of the vote. Including similar context in a footnote, when reliable sources say it's "necessary here", is not problematic at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    The lead sentence in question is currently under RfC above. Option #3 seems to me the only neutral one, the only one that tells the whole story, but it's fairly clear it's not going to reach consensus. So neutrality in this area may be a lost cause unless someone cares to take the question to a higher court, whatever that would be. I'm not that guy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    Mandruss, my understanding is that the RFC is about the wording "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" rather than about the footnotes. But, if you like, we can follow the suggestion of User:MelanieN who said, "The footnotes issue can be dealt with after that RfC is resolved".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend recently to abuse the quote attribute of the citation template, and this would seem to me to be another example. It should only be used to provide relevant context, and this seems like an expansion of that. I agree with MrX on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the cited source when it says "there's some context that's necessary here"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I do indeed disagree, because the "context" that Cillizza was adding was totally unnecessary. Trump was fact checked more often than Clinton because he made more statements than Clinton and lied more often. That's just Cillizza adding his 2 cents because he's an opinion columnist, and it isn't germane to the material that was being added. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump was fact checked more often than Clinton because he made more statements than Clinton and lied more often. - To factcheck him more often on the premise that he lied more often would be highly circular, and I doubt anyone could do that and be taken halfway seriously. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The URL for that Cillizza article says "news", see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/ If it is not news, then I suggest we remove it from the lead, which would still leave two footnoted news articles. But I doubt we should treat the Cillizza piece differently from what the URL says it is. Moreover, WaPo identifies Cillizza as a "reporter".[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the quote is accurate and the reference is reliable, I don't see any need to include this quote in the reference citation, and I certainly don't see any need to make a big battle over it. In general I think the use of quotes in reference citations is overdone. In fact it often seems to be done for argumentative purposes ("see? This is what I am trying to prove"); I would prefer to see reference quotes used only when necessary for clarity. That's a general comment; I am not implying anything about the particular case here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, if the quote is accurate and the reference is reliable, then I assume you agree that the source says (accurately and reliably) that "there's some context that's necessary here". So it would seem irresponsible for us to omit the context completely in the lead. I agree that quotes in footnotes should be the exception rather than the rule, but here the only alternative would be to place the necessary context in the text of the lead itself, which would be preferable to the status quo but perhaps objectionable to other editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This is one out of three citations to a sentence in the lede. Just because Cilizza thought "some context" was necessary for his full-length article, doesn't mean it is necessary for our purposes. But I'm not going to get deep into the weeds here. My feeling is that there is no need for this and it's not worth fighting for. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
If you'd like to rely on the first two refs, we can do that. We do not have to take the third ref out of context. Accordingly, I plan on removing the third ref.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't. Just because you can't get consensus for adding two-quotes-in-one to a footnote, that does not clear the way for you to remove the entire citation. - MrX 21:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there is no reason to remove this reference. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Obviously, this source is not a reliable source for a factoid stripped of context that the source itself says is "context that's necessary here". If the ellipsis is what's causing a problem, I'm glad to quote without an ellipsis. Editors here seem oblivious to the problem with omitting context that the source says is "necessary". That is a major no-no anywhere in any Wikipedia article, not to mention in the lead where we have the most controversial sentence of a high-profile BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. Leave it be. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Rarely have I seen a headline (cite title) that was so far removed from what the writer said. It's clear enough that Cillizza didn't write the headline. The quote simply attempts to provide balance and clarity, at the same level of visibility as the headline. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not restructuring intel agencies

I removed a sentence about this. His spokesman says it's false. See "Trump is not planning to restructure spy agencies, spokesman says" by Antonio José Vielma (Thu, 5 Jan '17), CNBC.com.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Font size

Howdy folks. TBH, I'm not overly concerned if we have one of either sizes - (elect) or (elect) - in the infobox. Just please, make sure that it matches what's in the Mike Pence article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The following is copied from User talk:GoodDay.
1. MOS:FONTSIZE advises against further reduction of font size where the font size is already smaller than default. As a guideline, that represents a community consensus. This is an accessibility issue and Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously.
2. You do not have a local consensus to deviate from the guideline at Donald Trump. As a matter of fact, you have not even sought one.
3. There is no community consensus for inter-article consistency as a general principle.
4. It matters not how many editors don't like the guideline, or how many articles fail to observe it. That is not how community consensus is determined. You are free to try to get the guideline changed.
I have tried my best to express to GoodDay that inter-article consistency lacks community consensus and that it's essentially an I just like it argument. If there is a p&g basis for deviating from FONTSIZE, I would like to hear it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep trying to have them consistent. Shouldn't be difficult with only about 50 hrs to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe there's a standard info box font? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

John Lewis comments

The following was deleted from the article today.

On January 13, 2017, John Lewis stated during an interview: "I don't see the president-elect as a legitimate president."[1] He added, "I think the Russians participated in having this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don't plan to attend the Inauguration. I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected. That's not right. That's not fair. That's not the open, democratic process."[2] Trump replied on Twitter the following day, suggesting that Lewis should "spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results," and accusing Lewis of being "All talk, talk, talk — no action or results. Sad!"[3] Criticism of Trump for his Twitter comments noted Lewis is the civil rights leader who was brutally beaten for the cause.[4][5]

References

  1. ^ Todd, Chuck; Bronston, Sally; Rivera, Matt (January 14, 2017). "Rep. John Lewis: 'I don't see Trump as a legitimate president'". NBC News.
  2. ^ Nicholas Loffredo, "John Lewis, Questioning Trump's Legitimacy, Among Dems Skipping Inauguration", Newsweek, January 14, 2017.
  3. ^ Dawsey, Josh; Cheney, Kyle; Morin, Rebecca (January 14, 2017). "Trump rips John Lewis as Democrats boycott inauguration". Politico.
  4. ^ Smith, David (January 14, 2017). "Donald Trump starts MLK weekend by attacking civil rights hero John Lewis". The Guardian. Retrieved January 15, 2017.
  5. ^ Yamiche Alcindor (January 15, 2017), "In Trump's Feud With John Lewis, Blacks Perceive a Callous Rival", The New York Times, retrieved January 16, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

I believe something like this would be included in a NPOV Donald Trump article as it has been much more widely reported in the media than most items currently included in the Donald Trump article. Does anyone else care to comment? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article. Just because CNN has obsessed with it (more then Obama's having commuted Manning's jail time), doesn't convince me of its needing inclusion in this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a thread for this. No consensus there to include yet. — JFG talk 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Way, way TMI for this biographical article. There are articles where this information could be included (John Lewis, for sure, and maybe inauguration) but not this one. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

I am asking for the addition of the Presidential seal into President Donald Trump's ranking, as seen in past president's Wikipedia page.

I have written out the following text for a transfer onto the page and to remove the pre-existing labels. Fernandillo1 (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of the Presidential seal & Vice Presidential seal from the infoboxes of the other US Presidents & Vice Presidents. Recommend you get a consensus for such a massive addition. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 Not done There is a presidential seal at the bottom of {{Donald Trump series}}, below the infobox. I don't think we need two presidential seals. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Same sex marriages

In Political positions section the following subsection should be added: 

 ==Same-sex marriages==
 Answering the question about Same-sex marriages, Trump said: "It’s the law of the land -- and that he is “fine” with that being the case".[4][5]

Thanks !! M.Karelin (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done His acceptance of same-sex marriage is already mentioned in the "Social issues" section. — JFG talk 23:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

a B.S. in economics Babuon (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Illegitimate president comment

Should be included. Samswik (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samswik: please specify. Are you referring to John Lewis calling him an illegitimate president? MB298 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It has been added to John Lewis (Georgia politician) where it belongs. Objective3000 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that it should be at the Lewis article. WP:FART is going to need an addition about tweets involving presidents pretty soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
+1 on WP:FART — JFG talk 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the US Constitution, Trump doesn't require Lewis' blessing in order to become President. That aside, Lewis' comment shouldn't be added to this article. As already mentioned, it's correctly placed in Lewis' bio article. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support inclusion - No...it is a living person's issue. It is documented and notable enough to be added here. We are not here to legitimize or disgrace a subject but this criticism should be added to this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As WP editors we're supposed to use our heads (what's worthy of inclusion, what's not). Let's see ... The DNC leaves themselves open to hacking, and their emails get made public. So tell me, after that occurred, one thing Trump could've/should've done different, in order to escape your need to register criticism now, in his BLP. (Should he have called off the election!? Say what?!) --IHTS (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
And tell me too, how the DNC's deliberate edging out of Bernie Sanders, did not delegitimize Hillary's candidacy, and how that criticism shouldn't be included about her candidacy in her BLP. --IHTS (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If you can show a non-WP:FRINGE level of support for Lewis's viewpoint, I think it should be included in one of the Trump sub-articles. His comments alone hardly show that. This article is already bloated and it can't be used as a repository for every controversy surrounding Donald Trump. There are guaranteed to be many of those for the next 4 years, as the man is a magnet for controversy, and we simply don't have the space. Obviously if there emerged a remotely viable movement to invalidate the election results (is that even possible under the law?), it would belong in this article; otherwise it's pointless politically-motivated chatter little different from birtherism. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I would argue Trump himself has made the comment notable, because he retaliated by attacking the black civil rights leader on MLK Day weekend and drew criticism from just about every decent human being in the nation, including wall-to-wall coverage on cable news and the Sunday papers. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: I beg to disagree. When an otherwise respectable person such as Mr. Lewis says something stupid, undermining the very democracy that got him elected, who are we to excuse him and give credence to his unsubstantiated feelings? Or is he a Putin puppet as well? — JFG talk 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: The problem here is that you think Congressman Lewis said something stupid, when in fact he absolutely did not. He is only saying what most Americans feel, which is that Trump's presidency is forever tainted by the influence of Russia and Comey. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it's just a feeling. Facts are stubborn and Trump was elected legitimately, with or without the help of Russian propaganda. It's been ironic to see the forceful denial of the election outcome coming from the same people who insisted that Trump should abide by the results. By calling Trump illegitimate, Lewis discredits the US electoral process, and although I'm not American, I do call that stupid. — JFG talk 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: If the result of the election was flipped because of the influence of Russia and Comey, which seems absolutely to be the case, then Trump wasn't elected legitimately and the electoral process is obviously broken. And I'm not American either. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Scjessey, those are big ifs. Let's leave it at that. — JFG talk 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
So why was *Hillary's* candidadacy illegitimate? (Most Americans know the DNC deep-six'd Bernie Sanders' chances, sent violent protestors to Trump rallies, that she breached national security then lied about it, so on.) --IHTS (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Lewis' remarks belong on Lewis' article. Trump is an attention-seeking buffoon, but this is just one more incident of him shooting his mouth off on Twitter, so his response, ignorant as it was, wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in this article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The best place to include it is in the inauguration. Just a mention that Lewis called it illegitimate, politicians boycotted, singers and musicians refused to participate leading to a few D list people singing (not the A and b list) Samswik (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't even add it to the inauguration article, as it's only Lewis' opinion. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: I have to agree with Scjessey on this for inclusion. Lewis has his own motives, that's obvious. It's totally political. The Russian story seems to be BS, but Lewis is a prominent member of Congress and when he says the new president is not legitimate, that's an issue that should be noted. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If multiple politicians were saying it, it would be worth mentioning. With just one person saying it - and not making a big point of it, but mentioning it in an interview - it should be covered only at Lewis's page IMO. Some of the other things that Samswik mentioned should be in the inauguration article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe 19 Dem congress people are boycotting the Inauguration because Trump is not 'legitimate.' SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine, they are free to exercise their First Amendment rights. Some people will surely claim that makes them not legitimate, though. Perceived legitimacy is a two-way street… — JFG talk 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
RE: 19 Dem congress people are boycotting the Inauguration because Trump is not 'legitimate.' Wrong. They are refusing to attend the inauguration, yes, for various reasons: they don't approve of Trump or his platform or his rhetoric or whatever. AFAIK none of them has said it is because he is not the legitimate president. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was just to go along with Lewis after the Twitter thing. And Lewis also boycotted George W. Bush's inaugural in 2000. I guess he wasn't legitimate either. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Strange move by Lewis, since Bush's first inaugural was in 2001. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As usual, Trump responded with his customary tact and grace: "John Lewis said about my inauguration, "It will be the first one that I've missed." WRONG (or lie)! He boycotted Bush 43 also because he "thought it would be hypocritical to attend Bush's swearing-in....he doesn't believe Bush is the true elected president." Sound familiar! WP" -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It belongs in John Lewis' article and the Inauguration article, but not here (not unless it grows bigger or something). As an aside when are we gonna get that Stuff Trump says on Twitter article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's grown bigger "or something". This is a major criticism and is worth mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's really only got bigger because the media, which hates Trump, won't stop talking about it. Their narrative is getting uglier and while at first I thought it should be included, but only as a mention, I have to agree with the others that this doesn't belong here. Maybe the election page. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It got bigger in a different manner but it does seem that some distance from the actual statement and the boycott itself would be a better way to deal with the notability issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump: "You are fake news"

Worth to mention? http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-gibt-pressekonferenz-ihr-seid-fake-news-a-1129595.html Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See also http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory Twitbookspacetube (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No. Trivial fingerpointing as the press tries to find a compass in a haystack of needles while blindfolded. --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This would be more useful in an article about Donald Trump's relationship to the press and media. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:3D1F:3BB7:60F9:F5C2 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This incident came up over at the fake news website article, as well. The problem is that we don't currently have a solid article on the neologism of 'fake news' as a metaphor (distinct from 'fake news website' the clickbait-scam), just a disambiguation page, so we could not come to a consensus on where this altercation-with-CNN tidbit belongs. As far as the biography of Donald Trump goes though, it is definitely just one side-comment in yet another altercation with a journalist amongst many, and does not really belong in this article. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
While amusing, doubt it would pass WP:10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that an article of the history of Donald Trump's relationship with the media might be appropriate, it is notable in itself. The concept of him as illegitimate has been repeated in the public discourse - I'd support as long as the notable people who made the accusations are included NimbleNavigator (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

On transition

RS regarding Trump claims during the transition:[6] (perhaps the landslide one for this article) see also, [7] for analysis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Official website

I think someone needs to change it to http://www.whitehouse.gov. He is listed as President and has been inaugurated.--Guiletheme (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done by another editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I also left the transition website up for now, that has way more information on it, whitehouse.gov just changed over, I think it would be appropriate to leave the transition website in the info for now until more information populates into whitehouse.gov Fbifriday (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead: Merging 4th paragraph into 1st

Is there consensus for this change?

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he is the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny that Mandruss mentions WP:OSE. This policy says in the second sentence, "The encyclopedia should be consistent in the content it provides" which seems to be exactly catherinejarvis's point. If we can give a unique lead to President Trumps' article, people could argue that putting "adulterer" in Bill Clinton's first sentence is just as valid, since it is an undisputed fact and reflected in the main portion of his article. But of course none of us would agree to that. Putting "television personality" before President does, in fact, seem like a disguised dig at the President, as if it were more important. She has a point there.Princetoniac (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You are claiming an equivalence between television personality and adulterer? Really? I would call that a false equivalence. And many would say that the last term is the most important, not the first. Where is it written that such lists are in decreasing order of importance? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first sentence tells who he is. The remaining paragraphs summarize the main points of the article, usually in chronological order. So it is appropriate that the election be the last paragraph in the lede, following all the other things he did in the first 70 years of his life. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Residence

I am going to undo [edit], and add Trump tower back into his residences as a private residence, as there are several sources to state that he will use Trump Tower now that he's in office, and use this as a way to gain consensus. While assuming good faith, I believe the editor is imposing what he views to be correct without gaining consensus. I believe leaving Trump Tower up as his "official" residence, and putting Trump Tower as his "private" residence is accurate, because he has stated, and it has been reported by several sources, that he intends to return to Trump Tower regularly during his presidency. Fbifriday (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Official portrait

Original
Cropped

Official portrait has now been made available on WhiteHouse.gov, see photo at right. Calibrador (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Derivative works are allowed and cropping / light retouching / color balancing are common practice on portraits and other pictures. — JFG talk 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That may be so, but presumably this image was selected by Trump and his people out of many options and presented in the way he prefers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the official picture as is, and fooling around with it will likely lead to more unnecessary conflict because of the different preferences of certain editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a bit more work yet into redoing or editing the wikifile for original version giving more care to metainfo about sourcing as that was one of the issues under prior discussion. This one starts as an actual photo and from Trump site, but the mediawiki entry is a bit messed/missing. The posted image is here, second image on White House subpage for People People President Donald J. Trump via either The Administration or The Presidents subpages. I see no named author and there seems no permissions, licensing, or ownership data provided by the site. (The main page copyright footer is not available, and USA.gov is directing me to President Trump which is Page not found.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – From a purely æsthetic standpoint, the totally blurred flag and blueish White House background are horrendous, I think Gage had done a much better job with the colorized version, but well this one is official… I concur with Markbassett's comment on the licensing / sourcing. This must be clarified. — JFG talk 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment – I doubt this is the full official White House portrait, and is on Whitehouse.gov on only a temporary basis, as it is stored on the website as "PE Color.jpg" (President-elect). However, until a formal portrait (if there is one) comes out, this one has my full support. MB298 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - And it's the very same image that was used for the inauguration. Looks like the people removing it against consensus have some explaining to do... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Comment - This photo is from the Inaugural Committee. Ostensibly, an official White House portrait will be taken by the Chief Official White House Photographer and be released. That will be his official portrait. Until then, this one should stay. thenextprez
thenextprez - just to say there is no WH photographer as of the Time.com story 18 Jan 2017 about that. I expect a whitehouse.gov photo without fake backdrop will come soon anyway, and that the site will post Copyright Policy too, but no idea when. Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"Incumbent" in infobox

Please remove "Incumbent" from underneath Trump's picture. He is not an incumbent (being RE-elected), but rather he's new to the office. Thanks. Grattan33 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC) grattan33

Obama's article showed that word during his first term, and that seems consistent with the dictionary definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Incumbent is defined by dictionary.com as "the holder of an office." Trump holds the office of President of the United States. Therefore, he is the incumbent. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Article size

Document statistics for this Donald Trump BLP:

  • File size: 1263 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 166 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
  • Wiki text: 314 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 79 kB (12850 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 3439 B

Document statistics for the Hillary Clinton BLP (which is a featured article):

  • File size: 1086 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 190 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 30 kB
  • Wiki text: 280 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 102 kB (16410 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 3414 B

Accordingly, I don't think the TooLong tag is justified at the top of this BLP at this time, and will remove it (it's already been removed and restored without any talk page discussion).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

79 kB is really not that much, when we're considering the scope of the individual in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree that current size is fine. (And I've been one of the people trimming unwieldy sections.) Comparison with Hillary Clinton's article suffers from WP:OSE though. — JFG talk 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:SIZERULE (a guideline) trumps WP:OSE (an essay), so you need better arguments in order to justify your position.. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The guideline says "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided". We're only at 79 kB.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: It also states: "> 60 kB—[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." I have yet to see any justifycation for keeping it above 60 kB. —MartinZ02 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm open to reducing the article size, but we don't need the TooLong template to do that. What parts of the article would you eliminate, Martin?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: I think we should split the following sections:
How would splitting them reduce article size?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is going to have less content if we move content elsewhere, thus reducing article size. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so you mean creating new subarticles. But there's already Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Filmography of Donald Trump, etc. So, are you saying that our summaries of those subarticles are too verbose?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice some of them. But, what do you think about splitting "Early life". —MartinZ02 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect from Trump

There is a discussion at Talk:Trump on whether that page should redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olidog (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple websites and Twitter accounts in the infobox

I don't think we should have multiple websites and Twitter accounts in the infobox. It should be sufficient to list the Whitehouse website and the POTUS Twitter account. In fact, the recent RfC was clear that one additional social media accounts should be added. JFG has added these twice today, the second time over my objection.- MrX 00:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MrX, sorry for undoing your edit; this needs to be discussed indeed. Let me explain why: about an hour after the inauguration, I found that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed had been boldly replaced by the @POTUS feed, and I don't think this change of account was anticipated in the consensus discussion to include Trump's feed. So, in order to give room for discussion, instead of just reverting the change, I made both links visible. About the White House vs Presidential transition links: I didn't touch them earlier and I don't know who added a second site; I just reverted your deletion of the transition site, again because I think this requires discussion and there is no need to rush to judgment. — JFG talk 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
When I added the whitehouse.gov site earlier, I left a comment on a talk topic that I was leaving the transition website because whitehouse.gov is pretty much empty right now, having just been reset from the Obama admin. All of the information about cabinet nominees, plans, confirmation hearings, etc, is on the transition website. Until the white house site is populated with more information, it is not a bad idea to keep the transition website up for those seeking info on the transition. As for twitter, I agree, his only official twitter now is POTUS, should be the only twitter up. Fbifriday (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My concern is about infobox bloat, and confusing readers. I think it's fine to keep the transition website for a little while, but only in the External links section. Since the transition is essentially over, I wouldn't expect it to be very useful to our readers. We added Twitter as an exception to WP:ELNO#Social because of President Trump's ongoing heavy use of it. I think including two Twitter feeds is excessive, and goes against the spirit of the consensus reached in the previous RfC.- MrX 01:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I can agree with leaving the transition website in external links but not in info box. And like I said, I agree with not having two twitters, just POTUS. It's his official twitter now, while he may use his personal account, the ones that comes from POTUS are the official tweets. Fbifriday (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This is but one of reasons I don't think there should be any Twitter links in any infoboxes anywhere in WP. If a Tweet makes sense for WP to mention, use an RS referring to it. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. In all reality, Trump's use of Twitter may be relevant right now, but this is an encyclopedia, and while we often change information to reflect current information, his twitter shouldn't be important to this article in the long term, except perhaps in his external links section. Fbifriday (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree that there should be only one web site and one Twitter feed in the infobox. The problem is that the switch to POTUS role is too fresh to shut down the prior incarnations of Trump's web presences. Therefore I would suggest to give it a week or two with the links staying there, and then make the change depending how those feeds are being used. — JFG talk 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Children in Infobox

The infobox lists Trump's children as: "5, including: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Tiffany Trump". This immediately raises the question "Which one's missing?". Template:Infobox person/doc says that children's names should be included "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant" and that "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable", so the guidelines seem to indicate that young Barron Trump, who doesn't have his own article, shouldn't be included. But I think this a case where WP:IAR comes into play. The omission of Barron is distracting, so the inclusion of his name improves the article. He is high profile and hardly an unknown figure, so I don't think the privacy reasoning applies. And whilst he doesn't have his own article, Barron does have his own subsection, so arguably the clause about notability doesn't apply either. I propose that the "5, including:" is removed from the infobox and "Barron Trump" is added. What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Barron should be included. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, rather than saying "Children: five including #1 #2 #3 #4" it makes far more sense to say "Children: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Downside of omission exceeds that of inclusion. In one week he will be a son of the leader of the free world, I don't think there is any expectation of privacy as to his name. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Malia and Sasha are linked in Obama's article, even though they don't have separate articles, so I see no reason why this should be different. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. Several prior discussions here and at family templates concluded that Barron's name should be mentioned, precisely to avoid such questions as "who's missing?" and constant edit wars on the issue. At the same time, an independent article on Barron Trump was rejected at AfD, with a consensus to redirect to his section on the Trump family article. I believe this gives us a mandate to include his name in the infobox and have it redirect to said section (and the link Barron Trump already does that). — JFG talk 09:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely agree le hacker extraordinaire should be included, per WP:IAR and convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Barron Trump should be listed, but without a wikilink. I agree that he is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the infobox, but not notable enough to have his own article. Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Edge3: Sorry, I don't understand the rationale. Is it written somewhere that he can't be wikilinked using his redirect unless he is notable enough for his own article, in which case it wouldn't be a redirect? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh... interesting question. At first, I thought that the redirect would be redundant with Trump family, which is also linked to by the infobox. I just realized that Barron Trump's article redirects to Family of Donald Trump, which is a different article. I have no personal opinion on which method is preferred, but I do note that Obama's article has wikilcnks for his two daughters, which in turn redirect to Family of Barack Obama. Edge3 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps someone would care to revert this, which I can't do per 1RR. It's my understanding that the "doesn't have his own article and isn't likely to warrant one anytime soon if at all" rationale applies to redlinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I was about to oblige but I think that SNUGGUMS's rationale to remove the link deserves consideration. Let's discuss. — JFG talk 16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Should Barron's name be linked?

Support

  1. Support link for clarity and stability. The redirect does an appropriate job of showing whichever content we have about him on the family page. — JFG talk 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. A link gives the reader easy access to the content we have about Barron Trump. That's kind of the point of the encyclopedia, easy access to information. If it "misleads" the reader into believing that the little Trump has his own article, I can live with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes, the redirect should be linked. There is no reason to leave him out just because he doesn't have an article. He doesn't have an article, but he DOES have information at the linked site. The setup without a link - saying "Trump has five children" and listing four of them - is just weird. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. This is fairly common. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support. No reason not to put in a link - it'll be blue and direct to a subsection. Bazonka (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Opppse linking as it gives the misleading impression that he has his own page (which he doesn't). If a subject isn't likely to have or warrant their own page anytime soon, then we shouldn't have a link suggesting otherwise. As I noted in my edit summary when I unlinked Barron, there isn't much (if any) chance of him having or warranting his own page anytime soon if at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Why does that matter? He has his own subsection in an article, so he's not completely non-notable. Bazonka (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Because people tend to expect articles on specific subjects when clicking links, not just sections within a general page. He would actually have his own page if he had any notability at all (which isn't the case here). Besides, it's not like that page introduces any new meaningful information that isn't already included here or at Melania's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment

For what it is worth their is a draft for his own article at Draft:Barron Trump. If he becomes worthy of his own article this can be published into the mainspace. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This option is not under discussion: a recent AfD was closed as redirect, and the target page has minimal contents, which are appropriate about a 10-year-old. — JFG talk 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Should this article be added to Category:New York Democrats, Category:New York Independents, and Category:Reform Party of the United States of America politicians? He was formerly affiliated with all the described parties. MB298 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, simply because his current party is Republican, and it could be confusing to put him in those categories. Is there a "former new york democracts" category? Fbifriday (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is already bloated with categories, several of which are questionable at best. I agree with Fbriday. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Coincidentally I trimmed a bunch of dubious or redundant categories today. — JFG talk 20:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Barron Trump

Isn't it disallowed per Wikipedia rules to not mention names of non-notable children in infobox per Wikipedia rules? If yes, then why is Barron's name included? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above! MB298 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already seen it. But shouldn't Wikipedia's rules be above everything else? Rfcs etc are for dispute solving and consensus, but they cannot override the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
First, no Wikipedia rules are absolute. Second, consensus decides how the rules apply to a specific case. Consensus is the king of Wikipedia rules. The clear consensus is that he should be listed. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing that "consensus is absolute". It is a way of solving disputes, not a way of violating the rules and making your own. Wikipedia rules are flexible, but that doesn't mean you can make up or discard them whenever you want. It is highly inappropriate behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS trumps all else. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't state that anywhere on its policy page. Especially any rule made by Wikipedia Foundation are outside the purview of the consensus. It states so on the very policy page. It is there to solve disputes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet, if you go against consensus here, you will be in violation of the discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBAPDS which can result in you being blocked from editing. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When did I say I was going against it? Even though I might be right, it might set off an edit war if I edited it and that is bad. I am only discussing here, nothing else. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:IAR also applies here. MB298 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Only if it prevents from improving Wikipedia which is not the case here, especially a child. But it doesn't allow willful changing and manufacturing of rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
In what way does the inclusion/mention of his sons ability to speak Slovene improve the page?It does not.And if that doesnt change your mind it can be pointed out as being a biased edit to potray his family and in turn himself as intelligent, impressive person or as a hypocrite which the article its tied to claims.Either this fact should be edited to address the situation it came from or its then considered trivial and find an admin crazy enough as a biased edit and should be removed.The other mentions are relevant.The info box mention should stay WP:INVALIDBIO and he has had news about him before the election and continues to get it as a 10y/o it is often accompanied by the mention of his father or mother as most articles about preteens are expected to be.Junkoo (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Trump transition

Should Template:Trump transition be moved to another preferred name? The "transition" is now outdated and another user as already changed the template to not be referred to as "Template:Trump transition"... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not really outdated. The transition is still a set of relevant topics. The template title should not be changed to Presidency of Donald Trump, since that's obviously a different set of topics.- MrX 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As Yet Unproven

This [edit] removed the words "as yet" from the sentence about russia supposedly having damaging information on Trump. Same editor removed it last night, I reverted, he removed again. The comment he added was ridiculous as well, because the sheer definition of the phrase "as yet" is "up to the present time", which is entirely accurate description of the accusations. They have not been substantiated yet, they may or may not be, but either way, "As yet" is still the accurate way to describe the accusations. Coming here to gather consensus. "As yet" or not? Fbifriday (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

'As yet' may be a problem because it implies that the allegations may be proven, which is unknown. Do we even need to say 'unproven'? It seems to be implicit in the word 'allegations'.- MrX 15:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
At best, it's superfluous; at worst, the implied "but stay tuned, the FBI is hard at work!" seems an NPOV violation, albeit a minor one. On balance, I could live without those two words. MrX makes a good point as to "unproven". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "as yet" does not belong there, and in fact seems to hint that the allegations are likely to be proven any day now. I concur with removing it. For that matter I prefer "unverified" to "unproven". Investigators and journalists set out to "verify" information, not to "prove" it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. It needs to be removed. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"As yet" conveys an anticipation that such allegations may be proven soon. Then it begs the question "why weren't they undeniably proven yet, since they surfaced several months ago?" so it opens yet another can of worms. Current wording "unproven allegations" is NPOV, even if it can be considered redundant. — JFG talk 16:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump unproven sexual misconduct allegations is redlinked. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. This title was debated back in the day and properly settled. The main point of contention was about "assault" vs "misconduct" iirc… The word "unproven" wouldn't have added any information, so would have been rejected per WP:CONCISE policy. It probably wasn't even suggested but I understand you are making a rhetorical argument here. Do you mean we should use this example to remove "unproven" from the sentence being discussed here? We can't assess prose by looking at the rules for titles. — JFG talk 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not citing a rule, I'm citing sound writing practice. Logical redundancy is logical redundancy, whether it occurs in an article title or in prose. Do you mean we should use this example to remove "unproven" from the sentence being discussed here? Yes, sorry if that was unclear. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"Logical redundancy is logical redundancy." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

Info box could use a better photograph of Donald Trump

The suggestion to look for a different photo is closed, per #1 in the "Current consensuses" at the top of this page. The question of whether to have a moratorium on discussion of this subject is below, see "Moratorium on infobox image". --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2017 (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.

The info box photograph of Donald Trump leaves much to be desired. He has a gloomy, doomsday look on his face. This photo should be replaced with a new photo of a happy, smiling, President. Anthony22 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's his official White House portrait. While I agree, I wish he'd smiled, it's his official portrait. Fbifriday (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm interesting conversation and word choice. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Whom did you have in mind.:) Objective3000 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
His facial expression in that picture is deliberate. If he had wanted a smiling portrait, he would have smiled. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I like it, I don't think it has a doomsday aspect but a serious, Clint Eastwood-like stare that means business. Stands out from all the doofus smiles (ie George Bush Sr) 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't go down this road. Trust me, you don't want. We've been there, and done that. The current photograph is consensus, let's just leave it at that. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
We just yesterday installed the photo resulting from a 30-day RfC ending last month, which we thought would finally end a many-months-long battle over the choice of infobox photo. I think the majority will agree that we should give the infobox photo a rest for awhile. We invested a ton of editor time in the current consensus, far more than many thought we should have invested, and it's not unreasonable to expect some return on that investment.
The endless parade of attempts to re-open the issue, completely lacking in perspective on the history of the issue, is beginning to make me think we need a consensus for a formal moratorium of specified length, say 6 months, just so we can get something else accomplished. Then such attempts could be shut down immediately with a pointer to the consensuses list. Who knows, maybe a few editors would read the list first, saving us even that small effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I still cannot understand why the infobox photograph is the official portrait of President Trump. The photo is very unflattering and conveys the impression of an unhappy person. I must admit, however, that the picture does give the appearance of someone who means business. Contrast Trump's official portrait with the portraits of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Obama and Bush are smiling and appear to be happy politicians. This projects a first-class positive image. Smile and the world smiles with you; frown and you frown alone. Anthony22 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I've taken the liberty of indenting this conversation. As to the photo, this is how Trump looks. See the very first Time mag cover. They even commented that no matter how many times they took the photo, that was the face he showed. That's his expression. It seems to be working for him since it's his official presidential photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Your changes to indentation presume that every comment was a reply to the one preceding it. I can't speak for others, but my comment was a reply to the opener, hence one level of indent, per WP:THREAD. I have corrected my indent. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I support Mandruss' suggestion of a 6-month moratorium (I wouldn't mind making it for the duration of his presidency) on any discussion of the infobox image. It can change only if the White House comes out with a different portrait and then we should use it. We always use the official portrait, and in this case we have affirmed that through agonizingly long discussion. BTW I think the consensus refers to the actual official portrait, not a cropped or otherwise modified version. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Turn it into a proper survey and we can all weigh in, show the consensus, close it. etc. and then we'll have something to refer back to when the inevitable drive-by editor shows up. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the moratorium and official-photo-only are separate questions that could be kept separate. In particular, I think the latter would need an RfC, whereas the moratorium wouldn't. Just for the sake of some temporary relief from the onslaught, and because it would be easier to pass, I would suggest a survey on a 6-month moratorium with the statement that it may be extended at the end of that time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that Mandruss has now proposed such a moratorium; see "Moratorium on infobox image" below. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg
Small head
File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg
Big head

Which image is best for our purposes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

We can't speculate on an upcoming new version per WP:Crystal. Better use what we have. — JFG talk 18:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason to assume a new photo is coming? Obama's first term portrait was also released by his transition team before his inauguration, just like this new Trump photo... Also, was this photo colorized? As others have pointed out, the source of the image is black and white. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: the crop has been loosened by MB298: thanks! — JFG talk 03:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all versions Neutral - I don't care what photo we use as long as we have consensus, but can someone (Calibrador or Stemoc?) explain how a color photo was sourced from a document that only contains a black and white version of the photo?- MrX 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC),- MrX 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm opposing all proposed versions of this image per shenanigans at Commons. It seems that the uploader and the derivative uploader can't or won't provide any evidence of the image being public domain and it appears likely that the image may have been recolored by an editor, which if true, is astonishing.- MrX 00:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't like because it seems to me that the picture is obviously photoshopped, what with the White House and flag backdrop, and I think we can do better - with almost any other unphotoshopped picture. Carptrash (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't crop - or as you are dismissively calling it, "small head". On the one hand, we have been told that we have to use this version because it is an "official" version; that was regarded as so obvious that the discussion was wham, bam, closed, 19 minutes from the appearance of the color image to the closure of the discussion. On the other hand, we are now being told that we shouldn't use the official version, we should alter it because... well, apparently because the official version wasn't the right choice after all. If we have "decided" to go with the inaugural invitation ("official") version for now, then go with it. However, I would like to see an answer to MrX's question above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    By the way, my concern is also about the image being released under the proper license. Just because the subject will soon be a government official does not necessarily mean that the photo is public domain.- MrX 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't crop. The proportions are all wrong. Also, I agree with MrX. We have to make sure this is okay on the copyright. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    User:MelanieN, there's ample precedent for cropping. See, e.g., this featured image of President Franklin Pierce. Monsieur X does pose interesting questions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You had to go back to Franklin Pierce to find an example? j/k :) I do note that the infobox image for the current president, Barack Obama, uses his full official portrait, from the waist up. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for a featured image of a President (i.e. featured in English Wikipedia rather than the Arabic or Persian Wikipedias), and Pierce's was the first one I stumbled upon. Besides, he went to Bowdoin College which is a favorite of mine. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's as crappy as any iPhone. His suit looks pitch black and takes up almost 50% of the screen. FYI, I've marked the image at Commons as a copyvio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the new, post-inauguration official photo has significantly better composition, with more light-colored material to the right of his jacket.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If the uncropped image is confirmed to be the official portrait, then we should use the uncropped image. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Now that I know that this was colorized by a Wikipedian from the black and white image, I say neither should be used. Just wait for the administration to release an image and say "this is the image" rather than all this nonsense of picking and colorizing photos. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither are 'official', they may go with another image taken at the same time where he "may" be smiling. This is just one of the few "official" images they have. For Obama in 2008, they were using his senate image before his newer POTUS image was released. I'm sure they will release the image noted above in a much Higher Quality/resolution in a matter of days. If no image has been released by inauguration day, we should pick one of the two above and use it for the time being. I'm sure they , just like us are confused what image to use for their new POTUS cause believe me, he will look horrible and orangey in whatever they'll choose (like we found out on this page for the last 2ish years :P ) I won't be surprised if the official image they release of his is in Black and White lol --Stemoc 00:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all versions - Gage Skidmore has stated that he colorized the b&w version from the PDF. I find it very hard to believe that a b&w photo, taken before he was president, is to pass forever as the official White House photo, which was the consensus that was formed in last month's RfC. I understand people's desire to finally put this to bed, but bending a consensus is the wrong way to do it in my opinion. I agree that the 19 minutes was precipitous.
    Wait until there is a web page https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump and it contains a formal portrait. Then use that without discussion. If that portrait is later replaced with a new one, use it without discussion.
    If the web page shows a b&w photo, which seems unlikely, I have no objection to colorizing it if that is within our rules. But that, of course, would open a new can of worms because some would have objections to the subjective judgment of the colorizer. As I said, that scenario seems unlikely and we can hope it doesn't come to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: (repeating my comment from the new thread "airport photo" above) I don't see why we even have to discuss this. The final RfC on picture choice was concluded with: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. It didn't say "once Trump is sworn in" or "once the White House web site is updated" or "once there is an official portrait that a majority of Wikipedia editors do not dislike". This is an official portrait and it must go into the article with no further discussion or moving the goalposts. The licensing and colorizing issues are being debated at Commons with a clear trend to keep the picture and accept the PD-US license. Even if that image ends up deleted (which is doubtful), we can revert to another one at that time. Now let's quit the edit warring, insert the picture that we have, and just move on. — JFG talk 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to cross-post.
As I've said previously, five editors used the words "official White House" in their !votes in the RfC, and none disputed that or offered any alternative. That being the case, it's absurd to suggest that the closer meant anything different in their summary. There is little question that we will insert the photo from the whitehouse.gov webpage when it becomes available; the only question is what to put in the infobox for the short time that we're waiting for that photo. My !vote is one for stability, one change instead of two. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, 5 people said they want an official White House photo, and 23 more people said they just want an official photo, without mentioning the White House. That's probably why RfC closer EvergreenFir only said "Once an official portrait becomes available" in their long commentary. Consensus is overwhelming, and we have an official photo. Other editors point out that prior presidents had their official portrait released before the inauguration too. No reason to sit on it. — JFG talk 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps EvergreenFir will state that they anticipated this situation and meant "any official photo", including a user-colorized version of a b&w taken before he was even president, but I doubt it.
I've clearly articulated my reasons to "sit on it"; I get that you don't agree with them. I fully understand that in the end I'm only one !vote, and consensus is rarely unanimous. Thus there is no point in continuing this, but I stand by my position. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually what is likely to happen is as follows. After another few days or a week of debate, we will install one of the colorized images. Then, when a new photo appears on the website, we will be unable to agree on whether to keep the existing one or use the new one. That is, unless there is a consensus here to use the colorized photo and never consider anything else, which doesn't seem likely. The completely subjective arguments will start all over again, and we'll be forced into another RfC to resolve them in what amounts to a democratic vote. So much for putting it to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Use the picture. Ever since they started using "official" photographs in government offices, ALL first term presidents' were taken as president-elect, with the exception of the five VP's who succeeded in midterm. The official portrait of Obama was released in December 2008, and was used until 2012. The second Bush's was used throughout his eight years. So let's just use the new one and gripe about how horrible he's going to be elsewhere. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose any colorized version of this. I'm sorry but the colorization does not set a good precedent, this is the President of the US we're talking about here. Surely we shouldn't resort to a random user with Photoshop to provide the illustration for one of the most prominent Wikipedia articles around here. Either do a direct, untouched crop of the original (http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Entire%20Program.pdf) retaining the black & white or keep the current image until theres an official release from the White House. ValarianB (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The "airport" photo

File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait (cropped).jpg This photo was released by the inaugural committee as the official photo of the president which will appear in airports and government offices. I suggest that we use it in the infoBox, as it's the official photo [redacted]. As prior consensus is required, I now officially request it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose as that's a picture of him as president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is already an ongoing discussion about this very image earlier on this talk page. I would urge users to look for existing discussion before adding new threads. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Attached to existing discussion. Wholeheartedly agree with Scjessey's comment as to talk page awareness. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support – I don't see why we even have to discuss this. The final RfC on picture choice was concluded with: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. It didn't say "once Trump is sworn in" or "once the White House web site is updated" or "once there is an official portrait that a majority of Wikipedia editors do not dislike". This is an official portrait and it must go into the article with no further discussion or moving the goalposts. The licensing and colorizing issues are being debated at Commons with a clear trend to keep the picture and accept the PD-US license. Even if that image ends up deleted (which is doubtful), we can revert to another one at that time. Now let's quit the edit warring, insert the picture that we have, and just move on. — JFG talk 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as we've already had this discussion. Check threads before starting new one. If there is an official presidential picture released then we can switch them out. But for now, this is it. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support using the official photo, immediately. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, because this image is a much more professional portrait than what we've got now. This web page is about to get yuuge attention, so waiting until next month will be too late for the millions of people who will visit beforehand.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support JJARichardson (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. As of this moment, it is his official portrait. President Obama's portrait was taken and released before he was inaugurated. We should use this until another comes out RedBear2040 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. --IHTS (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The consensus was to use the other photo until this one is out. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons I already stated in the already ongoing discussion about this same re-colored inauguration program photo. Also, printing a photo in a program is not equivalent to "releasing" it.- MrX 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - still no idea where this apparent photoshop of a prior image file is from, and now an also unsourced story that this will go into airports ... Can Arglebargle79 at least say where the URL where that was mentioned ??? I see a variation of it published in the inauguration pdf, but the provenance of the image is a photoshop on photoshop of something from somewhere. It's clearly him, but not clearly shown origins or copyright. Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. Did the page get locked because of this photo? Do we even know if this is the official photo? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Yes, It got locked because some people were edit warring to remove the consensus supported photo currently on the page. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL -- This is not coming from the transition team or a photographer he's designated. The one posted is a photoshop to recolor and airbrushed the hairline of a scan from a B&W in the inaugural pamphlet, which seems itself to be a photoshop of some unknown prior image to give it a flag and summer White house background. Sidenote Time.com mentioned he has not gotten a photographer as Obama had Souza, not sure if that's a policy stance or is a product of he's got an awful lot of positions still unfilled. Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination

MB298 - thanks, I guess I'm for that. Seems a decent photoshop of something that was previously a photoshop but lacks accurate history of provenance and sourcing so misleading to portray it as 'portrait' or 'release'. And since I expect an actual official photograph soon, I see no reason to keep flogging 'how about this photo' over and over. Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration attendance down, massively unpopular

According to the Washington Metro's Twitter feed, trips taken up until 11 A.M. ET are significantly down for this inauguration over 2013 and 2009. Even down on 2005. (source)

  • 2017 - 193K
  • 2013 - 317K
  • 2009 - 513K
  • 2005 - 197K

Presumably, this reinforces the fact that Trump is the most unpopular incoming president in 4 decades. Obviously the article needs something about this historic unpopularity. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Do they have numbers on 2001 or earlier? Just curious. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Dunno. Perhaps those numbers are the victim of Twitter's 140 character limit? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Put it in Inauguration article, not in the main article. Fbifriday (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, because this isn't just about the inauguration. It is also about Trump's popularity, or lack thereof. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Vox has done some stunning comparison photos showing how poorly attended today's event has been. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Too early for definitive numbers, and I wouldn’t use the Metro or Vox figures. When numbers are available; they obviously belong in an inauguration article. I don’t yet have an opinion on adding them here. Perhaps if the disparity is highly unusual and other factors (e.g. weather) are discounted. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Objective3000: But what about this issue about Trump being the most unpopular incoming president for 4 decades (see source in my opening comment)? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Should wait for official number, especially since the number of people riding the DC metro do not really mean anything. When they come out it sounds like info for the inauguration article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Scjessey No, this is WP:OFFTOPIC for this BLP article, its not biographical info of something significant in his life. This kind of detail belongs in the article about it, Inauguration of Donald Trump, and not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. The statement "Donald Trump is the most unpopular incoming president for 40 years" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the inauguration. It has to do with him taking office with historically low approval. This is about as biographically significant as it gets. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Scjessey - oh I could be lots more wrong, and have been before. But in this case WP:OFFTOPIC both subjects -- inauguration attendance numbers you presented maybe go towards an edit for the inauguration article, not here, and presidential popularity maybe goes to an edit in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. This is a BLP article, just isn't the place for all things that mention Trump. In any case and whatever article, please show an actual edit proposal to tell, and not just mention that VOX or twitter has something has a new article but also show ontopic and WP:WEIGHT deserving inclusion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I agree there's not much scope for the stuff about the inauguration attendance, but I absolutely disagree with your (frankly bizarre) notion that his popularity is off topic. In fact, I am confident it will end up in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So liberals block the access to inauguration and then talk about the low attendance? First of all, the picture presented in Vox (far-left dubious "source") is wrong with wrong time, second, the official attendance numbers are not yet in, with indications that this was the most attended inauguration in history. The source is White House press conference that happened minutes ago. Go check it. --Novis-M (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The vox picture was taken at 11:04, the Obama picture was taken at 11:30. CNN has released a gigapixel photograph of the inauguration during the President's speech, the crowd is very full. I think this point is moot until we get official numbers, which we won't get, because the Park Police don't release numbers, so let's just move on. Fbifriday (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN showed a similar crowd for Trump's inauguration as it did for Obama's but since they're "fake news" we know that it is misleading at least. Right? --TMCk (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all US media outlets (and many foreign media outlets) has shown like-for-like pictures of the 2017 and 2009 inaugurations that prove Trump's crowd was significantly smaller than Obama's. When White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer read his statement yesterday, the pictures he himself put up showed the Obama crowd was much larger. After the presser, most US media outlets called out Spicer for what turned out to be a string of falsehoods, including about the crowd numbers. It's all anyone is talking about today. So no, this is not "fake news" that is going away. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I was being sarcastic.--TMCk (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Although I think it's notable that inauguration attendance was low, and apparently dwarfed by yesterday's events, I'm not sure it should be included in this biography. Certainly it has a place in the inauguration article and probably the Presidency of Donald Trump article. After yesterday's Orwellian white house press conference, I'm starting to think that another spinoff article is needed. Something like False statements made by Donald Trump and his administration. The title is a bit cumbersome though, and no, I'm not kidding.- MrX 15:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that Wikipedians get tired of reporting every little bit of "news" linked to The Donald three times a day and uttering walls of text for every tweet. I guess that's what we face for electing the first celebrity president… — JFG talk 18:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't. I hope we keep him and his alternative facts under an electron microscope for the next four years, unless of course he ceases to hold the office of President before then.- MrX 19:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Blatantly false statements made on the first day of his presidency, by his press secretary [12] is not "news" in quotation marks, it's just plain ol' news. Particularly since it's pretty unpresidented. Neither is it just a "tweet". But I do agree that most of it belongs in the Inauguration or a separate article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"Particularly since it's pretty unpresidented." Pun intended? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It was only a matter of time before that became a verb. I think we're about to be presidented. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Minor everyday news, presidented or not, belong on Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. The Sean Spicer outburst is already well-documented there. I think we all wish to have some peace and quiet at this article some day… — JFG talk 23:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Except it's not minor. Everyday maybe but hey, that's what we're gonna get here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
And I can't believe somebody actually created an article called "Alternative facts"! Facepalm Facepalm I mean, what happened to good old propaganda and disinformation? Must it all be fake news these days? We truly do live in Orwellian times, where newspeak reigns supreme… — JFG talk 23:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, but not in the way you think.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy you know the way I think; perhaps I should stop thinking at all… — JFG talk 00:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Two one-syllable words are easily managed by the target audience. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand the record low approval rating most certainly belongs here too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The low inauguration attendance makes sense in an inauguration article. I don’t think so here. OTOH, I think the remarkably low approval rate on assuming office does merit inclusion. The dislike of both candidates was a major characteristic of this campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

‪I agree with those who say that this information belongs in the Inauguration article and possibly in the Presidency and Transition articles - but not in this biography. I don't suppose either article can use this item (coverage too little and too brief): when Trump took over the presidential Twitter account, the featured images on it were his official portrait and a photograph of a huge flag-waving crowd at an inauguration. Oops: the photo was of Obama's inauguration. It was quickly replaced.[13] --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)‬

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

He is no longer incumbent. He is actually President. 98.110.153.124 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See dictionary definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Slight grammatical error in lead sentence

"is an American businessman, television personality, politician, who currently serves as the 45th President of the United States" - Should read "television personality, and politician who currently serves as the 45th..." Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Qualified support - Assuming "American businessman" is retained, such that the sentence reads:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician who currently serves as the 45th President of the United States.

Although personally, I still don't see why it is necessary for "politician" to be there at all, considering Presidents are politicians, by definition. Greggydude (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence has been restored to the consensus version - see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs, item 11 - thereby eliminating the grammatical error. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks, Mandruss, you took the words right out of my mouth. About some of the wording mentioned here: The usage "serving as" or "who currently serves as" was discussed and rejected. Concerns included verbosity as well as a hint of POV, as if we are trying to avoid saying (just can't bring ourselves to say) that he IS the president. As for "politician," it is included in the first sentence for virtually every president. The lede sentence is supposed to define the person, not just their current office. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Most other presidents ran for offices besides president at some point. Since running for president is the only act Trump has undertaken to qualify as politician, it is redundant and unnecessary to specify he is a politician. Talmage (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Debt/deficit confusion

I've removed a paragraph from the article that appears to conflate the Federal Budget Deficit (the disparity between federal income and spending) with the National Debt (the total amount owed by the federal government). This is not the fault of the editor who added it (although the use of "abysmal" was obviously... er... abysmal), but rather it was the fault of the poorly-written article in The Hill that was used as a source. The article confuses debt with deficit and was basically just parroting talking points and making wild claims about how effective the policy would be, without giving any real indication of how it would be achieved or getting the opinion of any economic experts or Democrats. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey, thanks for your note. Instead of removing this information, why not work together to improve its accuracy? The fact that Trump wants to reduce federal spending is notable, irrespective of opinions about the feasibility, magnitude or impact of such a plan. And yes, US debt is unfortunately abysmal, and it has been growing relentlessly, no matter who was leading the country (except under Clinton). Nowhere else have we seen yearly drama such as a shutdown of government for lack of authorization to increase the debt. Well, perhaps Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany, I'll grant you that. In all seriousness, let's document what the new administration intends to do. — JFG talk 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's not burden our editing with editors' personal opinions as to the National Debt or related public policies. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Frankly, the paragraph cannot easily be saved. ALL administrations in most nations of the world pledge to reduce deficit and/or debt if at all possible, so the fact that the Trump administration is making wild claims about how it is going to achieve debt reduction isn't really notable. Besides, anyone with some basic understanding of economics would know the headline debt amount is of little consequence. What really matters is the Debt-to-GDP ratio, which for the United States is currently steady at around a perfectly manageable 105%. And the annual budget deficit has dropped from 1.4 trillion at the end of Bush presidency to 0.5 trillion at the end of the Obama presidency, which is not in any conceivable way "abysmal". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably off topic and/or already decided, but imo the Donald Trump#Political positions section needs serious trimming in this biography. Things like this would be omitted as TMI. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been heavily considering trimming that section. It has its own dedicated article, so if we summarize more then that's an easy way to slim down the article. Barring any objections, I'll likely start that soon. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
See the section above, "Can we remove the "political positions" section?", where you will find some support for this idea. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yikes, I've failed talk page awareness. Collapsed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump redirect

Hey everyone. There's a discussion at Talk:Trump#Requested move 21 January 2017 as to whether Trump should redirect to this article or not. Thoughts from this article's contributors are appreciated Nohomersryan (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Small grammatical error under First 100 Days section

Current sentence reads: "An order of January 27 suspended admission of refugees for 120 days and denied entry for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, citing security concerns about terrorism."

I believe the of should be an on. I'm very new to editing pages, still getting the hang of this thing. Keep up the good work! -Sunden17 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've been doing this for 3+1⁄2 years and I'm still getting the hang of this thing.
I don't think "order of January 27" is strictly an error, but "on" is no worse and so no reason not to make the change. I changed the sentence to begin, "On January 27,". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

Change the |education= parameter to |alma_mater=. It just listed the school that he studied, not the degree. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Prior consensus upheld. — JFG talk 17:39, 28 January 2017 (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.

The first sentence in Wikipedia biographies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama begin with the same phrasing, as the biography of Donald Trump should do. I am going to change it to reflect the other biographies of his predecessors.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Catherinejarvis: Please don't do that without first discussing it with other editors. There is currently a consensus for the language you are seeking to change, so expect opposition. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The article on President Trump should reflect articles on other recent Presidents, to avoid people using it as a platform for snarky comments. Saying he is a television personality before saying he is the President invites people to abuse other pages for other Presidents. Any President is a television personality by definition. The article should say "Donald Trump is an American politician and the 45th President of the United States" and stop there, to be in line with articles on Clinton, Bush and Obama which say exactly the same thing in their opening sentence.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Bush and Obama were politicians, Trump is also a businessman and television personality. Phrasing is exactly the same, but also includes other things he has done. Look at Reagan's, it includes the fact that he was an actor. Fbifriday (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but for different rationale to Fbifriday. Many former presidents were businessmen. My rationale is that Trump is world-renowned as a businessman and a TV personality, and so they are necessary components of his description. My personal feeling is that "politician" should come first, but we had that argument consensus-building discussion already. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Current consensus is the result of extensive discussion and is fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support The article should be consistent with similar articles, per WP:OSEPrincetoniac (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support-The article should, as Reagan's does, at least identify him as a "politician" before describing him as a television personality or businessman. The presidency is by far the biggest, most important, and most visible job that he has ever held or will hold. Display name 99 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The existing text is the result of extensive previous discussion and reflects the unique nature of the subject's life and career.- MrX 18:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The previous, extensive discussion is here: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 43#Lede/& Election section Each word was debated and the current formulation was the result. No changes should be made to the current formulation without having at least as extensive a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has already been discussed at length and is the result of consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unnecessary precedent, and seems unsuitable for this case, or at least not enugh to be a motivating thing. While I think it's not a bad opening, I think calling it 'precedent' is not a valid or sufficient grounds to drive for change. First, I think that's unnecessary conformance here and trying to make all pages look the same is not a valid or desirable thing. There was no discussion before this about of 'should every page start like X', and the text in question - while decent - varies on other presidents and was just sort of ad hoc with nothing special to favor it by itself over other phrasings. One turns to precedent to get an idea when there is a change called for by other reasons or question of style, not as the reason for change. Second, I'll point out that such a norm would lead to the process of making an edit becoming a harder template discussion and a whole new round of discussion about Trump article particularly, and just feel we don't need additional incitements in this article or at least this isn't enough to mess with the WP:STATUSQUO. Finally, I think variation should be allowed for by WP:IAR, WP:OSE and WP:SSEFAR -- when the individual case has a difference, then the article text should have a difference. In the Trump BLP article, 'Politician' is a really recent addition, unlike others to whom it was the bulk of their adult lives. It seems it will be WP:WEIGHT prominent enough in press foreverafter to be in the first line but ... even after they may well say 'billionaire' first then 'and President'. I think in WP portrayal of his life businessman will always come first in WP:WEIGHT of mentions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First sentence

Prior consensus upheld. — JFG talk 17:39, 28 January 2017 (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.

The first sentence needs to be simplified to the primacy of his current office. I propsed this. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. He is known for being an American businessman, television personality and politician. How there is a claim of consensus when the previous discussion said no consensus was reached and the fact he's only been in the role for 4 days. For reference his predecessor, Obama, doesn't mention lawyer, law professor, community organizer, Nobel Prize winner or Senator in the first few paragraphs. "President of the united States" is a rather penultimate office and distinction. It is also his current role. Trump is known for other things but the office he holds should be set out as what he is. First sentence should not give equal weight to anything else. I didn't remove that information, just moved it to a position that is subordinate. --DHeyward (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree with DHeyward. MB298 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree - It's disruptive to ignore the hidden comment and it's dishonest to change the listing at the top of the page as if consensus supports your bold edit. Start an RfC if you think this should be changed, otherwise please respect the fact that other editors have already reached consensus to keep the current wording.- MrX 03:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree We actually never use "their current office" as the description of who they are in the lede. The first sentence is to describe the person - a description which preceded his current position and will survive it - rather than to name his current office as if it was synonymous with the person. None of the articles about other recent presidents start the way you want to do it. For example,
  • Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017.
  • George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009 and 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000.
  • William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001
Each of these people was primarily a politician; that is their main identity and so it is the only "occupation" listed in the lede sentence. (They are also lawyers, authors, etc. but that's not what they are primarily known for.) Here's how we have handled someone who had a significant, notable career outside of politics, in other words the most similar to Trump:
  • Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who was the 40th President of the United States, from 1981 to 1989.
It's the same with other office holders: the lede describes them as a politician and whatever else, not "so-and-so is a Senator" or governor or whatever.
  • John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is American politican who currently serves as the senior United States Senator from Arizona.
  • Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown Jr. (born April 7, 1938) is an American politician and lawyer who has served as the 39th Governor of California since 2011.
This is why we have a strong consensus to do the lede sentence here this way. We have had long discussions about the order to put the various words (see above, "Current consensuses, #11"), but pretty much everybody has agreed to follow the pattern of how this has been done for other officeholders. As MrX said, it would require an RfC (which would be pretty much a waste of everyone's time) to change it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree per MrX. Process first, then content. But my own feeling is that we have spent more than enough time debating this and the status quo is good enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree – Irrespective of the OP's argument, their bold editing against painstakingly-established and well-advertised consensus was disruptive. Fundamentally, the reason Trump's lead sentence is different from prior presidents is because his life was different from theirs. — JFG talk 13:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree per MrX, JFG, et al. We've already gone round with this one. If you think it needs changing, start an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    Please no more RfCs. An RfC should only be a last resort tool when communication between regular editors has produced an impasse. The situation here is pretty clear cut. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Apart from very occasional tweaks, the vast majority of editors who regularly contribute to this article are happy with the current wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Déjà vu all over again. For all the reasons stated the last times this was discussed. And please, not another RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_45&oldid=1077843726"