Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Possessive friend

In the Professional Wrestling section, "and a friend of WWE chairman and CEO Vince McMahon's" should be "and a friend of WWE chairman and CEO Vince McMahon". Slightly more formal, which seems appropriate for the current President's article. Apparently I can't edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CouldOughta (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Net Worth

In the last sentence of paragraph 2 it states that "As of 2016, Forbes listed him as the 324th wealthiest person in the world and 113th richest in the United States, with a net worth of $4.5 billion." However, his net worth is now 3.7 billion as of February 20, 2017. Someone please change this. York12321 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [1]

Per #Current consensus item 5, it has been agreed to keep the annual evaluation of Trump's net worth in Forbes' billionaires list, not their "real-time" estimates. We can update it when they publish the 2017 global update, but it doesn't look like this is available yet. — JFG talk 21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-election campaign typo

The last sentence of the "Re-election campaign" section is missing the month. It currently reads: "Trump marked the official start of the campaign with a campaign rally in Melbourne, Florida on 18, 2017, less than a month after he had taken office" (bold to show location of error). Rjferreiro (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up. SkyWarrior 04:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Puzder

Businessman Andrew Puzder is still listed as a potential Secretary of Labor in Trumps cabinet @ 'Cabinet-level nominations'. What is the best way to show his withdrawal? Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, User Coffee. Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

America's Nehemiah, is it policy-wise worthy for addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.219 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert of "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database"

I'm told by Mandruss that my edit adding "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database" that Mandruss and earlier Sundayclose reverted should be discussed on the talk page—so here goes:

  • Sundayclose reverted on February 6, 2017 with reasoning: "No need to single out SNL for an external link"
  • My response after a few days was today to "put back imdb of Donald Trump (Character)-SNL is 1 of 120 instances in the list..."

That's quite a list that I think adds to the page. If we delete that then perhaps "Donald Trump at the Internet Movie Database" could go as some may not like something someone said etc etc. I've added "... (Character)" references at many pages and don't recall any problems. What say the community? DadaNeem (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I also took issue with Sundayclose's edit summary, and for the same reason, as seen at User talk:Mandruss/Archive 5#Trump. I take the ArbCom remedies seriously, I do my best to enforce them whether that serves my position or not, and they clearly say that disputed edits must have talk page consensus. And disputing the rationale for removal is not necessarily the same as opposing the removal. I generally abstain from External links issues since they seem relatively unimportant to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to put politician and president in the same sentence.

This is overly redundant. Please clean this mess up. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm sure there's megabytes on discussion on this, but I also think that "politician" should be taken out, given that he's not a politician outside of being a president, as silly as that may seem given the history of the presidency. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: makes an excellent point. He was never a politician. He's being called one because he ran for office and won. Yesterday in his press conference he said he said he guessed he was one now. I think it's overstating "No one is more of a politiican than the president," since he held no political office or any government position, prior to being elected. But it is in the lede after much discussion and it will stay. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Drmies makes an excellent point (and I'm not just saying that because he's handing out barnstars).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's BS. He has been in politics since the 1980s. He has been a politician since the 1980s. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You're not making sense, or you're contradicting yourself--or both. You said something was redundant (well, "overly redundant", in which "overly" is redundant). I made an educated guess at what you meant. If I guessed wrong, you should explain yourself. Also, that Trump has been a politician since the 1980s is prima facie preposterous. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not redundant. Politician is the profession(someone who seeks or holds a political office); President is the office that a politician holds. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • IP, I see you have a pretty extensive track record of commenting here--that is, making rather vague and bellicose statements. Bishonen has warned you of discretionary sanctions; 331dot and others (including some shady character named Drmies) have suggested you stop making disruptive comments here. Be more constructive (and clear), or be blocked--under discretionary sanctions, you are liable to get blocked for disrupting stuff. Note: I consider myself uninvolved in regards to you, and I happen to be an admin. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, there's more from this IP editor in sections below. I think they're standing on the verge of not being here to really improve our article. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with @Drmies:. This IP does not appear to be here to edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Health section

I removed a paragraph that discussed President Trump's mental health based on a letter to the editor of the New York Times. [2]. Aside from the HIPAA laws, which would prevent a real doctor from making this claim, if any of that were actually true, making the statement that "Donald Trump is not mentally ill." and then going on to explain that he's a narcissist is still a BLP violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If it was a BLP violation, the editor who added it should be warned. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently an admin believed it was a BLP vio, and revdel'd his edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Relates to source:

I posted:

[REDACTED]

There is a great deal of scuttlebutt going around about Trump's mental condition. This seems to answer most of that stuff in an authoritative way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fred, I'm frankly surprised that you believe that what you added would be appropriate for a WP:BLP. The paragraph is referenced to a single source (a letter from a psychiatrist - who has never even met Mr Trump as far as I can tell - to a newspaper) and is being used to introduce the allegation that "he is narcissistic". Simply to say that his (alleged) narcissism doesn't rise to a personality disorder does not make it balanced. Your proposed paragraph also slides in that "some people" (who?) may consider his behaviour "harmful". This further allegation is unreferenced and far from neutral coverage. The paragraph isn't answering "most of that stuff" in an authoritative way, it's a thinly disguised character assassination. It was correctly reverted and deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but, is what you posted above verbatim of what had to be deleted from the article's history? If so then it seems to be very bad decision-making on your part to post it again. Also, I restored User SW3 5DL's choice of subject line, there was no need for you to alter that. ValarianB (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree. Posting it again on this talk page after it had been rev-deleted is spectacularly nonsensical. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I posted a warning on his talk page.I'm trying to find an admin to revdel it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is NO way we are going to accept sensitive health information based on a letter to the editor for heavens sake, much less from an armchair psychiatrist, that is, someone who is just speculating and has never examined the person. For that matter we would only accept it from someone who HAD examined them if they had the person's permission to reveal it. Don't post this again. (Sorry, folks, I can't do the revdel because I don't have tools on this account.) MelanieN alt (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the first point, what the hell are you on about with "arm-chair psychiatrist"? Diagnosis is absolutely possible without "examining the patient", (with the caveat that this does not apply to all diagnoses) — and that is exceedingly clear in DSM-V. With that in mind I find it ludicrous that someone with no experience whatsoever in the field throws out inane criticism of legitimate sources by calling them "arm-chair psychiatrists". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Goldwater rule. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that has no bearing on diagnosing someone based upon their behavior as assessed indirectly. The Goldwater rule is an esoteric ethical rule that only exists in the US, and has nothing to do with the validity of the diagnosis. Wikipedia has no reason to abide by the Goldwater rule, no policy that suggests we should refrain from reporting what international and non-APA-affiliated psychiatrists say — or even that we refrain from reporting what is said by APA-members in violation of that rule. Of note is that there has been significant debate about whether to rescind the rule within the APA because it doesn't make sense and acts to chastise professionals from speaking out on important issues. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I left a note on Bishonen's talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the revisions. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A statement that most politicians are narcissistic is so obvious it does not need a reference. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, having looked at the narcissism page, I don't see that the use of the word in a standalone context necessarily means that the word is being used in the strictly "DSM' sense, which is covered separately in the narcissistic personality disorder article. Simple "narcissism" probably wouldn't deserve to be included in the "health" section, however, although I don't see right now where it would necessarily reasonably be included, which would probably be more of a "personality" section. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, narcissism ≠ narcissistic personality disorder. Neither is it necessary to examine a person face to face in order to diagnose them — that is evident in the DSM-V defintion of NPD. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion of the Goldwater rule is here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but even that article only sees it through the very narrow lens of American politics. Outside the US psychopathography is a valid field, and while you may or may not agree with the ethical underpinnings of the Goldwater rule, it does not detract from how psychiatric diagnosis is possible (with certain caveats) without direct interaction with a subject. We as Wikipedia are not bound by the rule, and while it may be pertinent to discuss it in articles: invoking it to silence otherwise valid sources is per definition WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. We should always strive to show both sides of the argument, and the question here is not whether we can discuss Trump's mental health or not per BLP (we can), but whether it is possible to do so in a neutral manner with high quality sources — and whether it is due. With the wealth of sources discussing it, I find that question to be very simple: Yes it is worth a mention. Possibly something along the lines of:

Donald Trump's mental health has been called into question by psychiatrists and mental health professionals — some going so far as to apply diagnoses such as narcissistic personality disorder. However other professionals contest this, suggesting any such categorization is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater rule, and thus would be both unethical as well as incorrect.

This paragraph is objectively not controversial. The debate here should be about whether such a section is due: not whether or not one likes it; whether one takes issue with violation of the Goldwater rule; or whether one believes either party is correct. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a distinct dearth of links to quality reliable sources in this discussion. It may be best for editors to provide some before continuing. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The comment appears to be an attempt to bring into the article questions about the president's mental health. That is a BLP violation. Any speculation offered by unethical doctors looking for publicity at the expense of the president does not belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There is so much value judgement in that sentence — and it entirely ignores so many policies. I will again repeat the two points to consider:
  • Are there reliable sources? — Answer is: Yes
  • Is it due? This is what we need to debate
Whether we see the doctors as unethical and evil, or even supremely altruistic and courageous (standing up to a bizarre rule) is beside the point, and engaging in discussion about that is only like to polarize the field and make everything worse. If you absolutely want to vote, base your argument on policies or sources, not on ad hominem attacks of the authors or sources.
WP:SHOUTING BLP is entirely pointless on an article on a public figure as well known as the freaking president of the United States... The following policy passage from BLP encapsulates it very well:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE covers it, please go there before drawing such extreme conclusions SW3 5DL. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources discussion the issues with varying conclusions:

And that is from a 5-minute search and from the first pages of a couple of result-pages. There are far more sources, and likely some that are much more reliable, so don't go around saying that this discussion violates BLP… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note also the following:
Now we can evidently see that the subject exists in reliable sources, can we stick to the issue of whether or not it is WP:DUE instead of discussing the supposed and evidently non-existant violations of BLP which includes WP:PUBLICFIGURE, or various shortcomings of my character because I noted that similarly strong lists of sources exist calling Trump a fascist, or someone showing fascist tendencies? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I have to note that the post above with a load of opinionated reports was posted by User:CFCF - a user that also recently tried and failed to get Trump listed as a Fascist diff - as we can see, it is simply more of the same policy violating non neutral WP:BLP violating attack content - Users should support policy from a neutral position. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Note whatever you want, that doesn't make it true or at all relevant. I supported and still support including a mention of the myriad of sourcing discussing Trump's alleged fascist positions. How that would affect credibility when most of the major news sources have discussed it is frankly ridiculous. The BBC, NY-Times, WaPo, Politico, FP and others all discussed the issue, and it is frankly a violation of WP:NPOV not to include that information when 50+ sources discuss it, but I digress. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Digress as much as you like but do not hide it. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edit removing the {{Collapse top}} was in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, & WP:ADHOMINEM. I will also note for the record that there was no "failure" in including the section, I simply did not have the time to draft an RfC, and there may yet be mention of it. However this is unrelated to the discussion at hand, and this thread should be {{hat}}-ed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Govindaharihari: At issue is what, if any, content should be included under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Your opinions about any other editor's motives or biases have no place on this page. Review WP:AGF and play the ball not the man. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, actually they were deemed to have a place as Carl Fredrik's ANI complaint was closed as a unanimous failure. If an editor is repeatedly making bad and potentially BLP-violating suggestions to a BLP article, then it is within any editor's purview to review his/her actions. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@ValarianB: Wrong on multiple counts. Happy to discuss on my talk page if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No,I am quite right on all counts, and I have no desire to shunt the discussion to a non-public space, thanks. You are wrong, as evidenced by the closing of the ANI against Carl Fredrik wit a warning that repercussions would come his way if he continued. You aren't going to bully people who speak up against wrong-doing users into silence. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ok, the general-purpose "bully" accusation against editors who have no more strength or authority than you so can't possibly be bullying you. Experienced users know better. The question of whether this is blpvio is the subject of this discussion and the one at WT:BLP; you don't get to unilaterally declare it so, attack another editor, and disrupt article talk because some ANI complaint resulted in a warning. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"Experienced users" already decided the matter, when the user in question tried to unilaterally hide comments that he did not like. TTFN. :) ValarianB (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"No violation found" ≠ failure. There were also a number of editors on this page that agreed that the section was not relevant to the discussion at hand — and it is turning less and less relevant by the minute. I will not hesitate to file another report against other users who engage in ad hominem and discussing issues that are irrelevant to the talk page. We so far only had engagement by one uninvolved editor, and that in no way makes out what is considered a definitive decision. Neither did anyone take into account the discretionary sanctions present on this talkpage.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
As you say, the core of the issue is WP:DUE — and I won't argue either way as I've already stated my opinion. However WP:BLP section WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes this type of mention entire uncontroversial, and I have a hard time believing the BLP notice-board would come to any other conclusion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Its against multiple wikipedia policy policy and guidelines. It is simple partisan non wp:npov and wp:blp violating additions, sad to see an admin User:Fred Bauder adding content that requires rev deleting. If an administrator does not respect and or understand wp:policy and guidelines then he should resign. - Health concerns are simply that, has he had official health concerns that have been treated by doctors, no - opinionated chit chat about his mental heath whether reported in "reliable sources" should not be repeated here by experienced contributors in a living persons biography, we are requested to report conservatively and with caution. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPOV specifically states that both sides of an argument be heard, not that biased or non-neutral points not be heard. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet are planning to invoke the 4th section of the 25th Amendment? I don't see any reason for adding such information on mental health speculation. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The only reason you would include statements by psychs (remote-diagnosing) stating someone does *not* have a condition is if you were including statements by psychs (remote-diagnosing) stating they *did* have them. Since we are not doing the second, we do not need to rebut non-existant accusations with the first, otherwise its clearly UNDUE material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • At the BLP talk page I posted the following, neutrally worded question: "I would like a general opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to include commentary about, or evaluation of, a public figure’s mental health – provided the commentary is done by professionals in the field and reported in Reliable Sources. The case in point is this discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Health section." I made sure to specify "professionals in the field" and "reliable sources" since that seems to be the basis for Carl Fredrik's argument that we should include it. So far four people have responded. All four said: no, it is not appropriate. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That really doesn't matter one iota. You are also misrepresenting the discussion of whether it is due to promote the faulty point that it is a BLP-issue. It objectively is not one — as there are multiple sources. This just isn't up for debate — and it does not help your case that you intentionally have misrepresented the discussion and entirely omitted a link to the discussion. I for one can not find any such discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard which is the appropriate place to discuss the issue (that is if BLP had at all been the issue at hand). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I did link to that discussion, a few comments above on this page. Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Mental health of a subject. I see that you have found it. The reason I put it on the BLP policy talk page rather than the BLP noticeboard was precisely because I wanted the question considered in general from a BLP standpoint, not evaluated specifically with regard to Trump. I wanted an evaluation of your repeated insistence that this has nothing to do with BLP guidelines. Based on responses there so far, the opinion at the BLP policy talk page is that it does, emphatically, deal with BLP guidelines. I see that you have entered the discussion there and are strongly arguing your point. There are now seven people disagreeing with you and saying this kind of material is NOT appropriate in an article, for BLP reasons. --MelanieN alt (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New source just out:

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter one iota about multiple sources - its about wp:blp and editing conservatively and with care and concern for the living person - I comment here only in minority worthlessness - there is zero chance of this crap being inserted to this wikipedia biography so go forget about it. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This is where you are wrong. There is nothing in BLP that at even remotely prohibits inclusion of this information. Please read WP:PUBLICFIGURE and refer to the sources instead of referencing your personal opinion by calling sources "crap". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Nothing in public figure overrides WP:BLP major concerns and careful conservative editing as requested by that policy. Sorry for your position but you have no support, no consensus, although you support it, there is no support in policy and guidelines, in fact there is strong opposition to your position and interpretation of policy and guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You're entirely missing the point: and I'm not even taking sides as to the validity of the claims. However it is just so abundantly clear in WP:PUBLICFIGURE — that it absolutely applies here:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

If you wish to make a valid point Govindaharihari take some time to clarify how this at all differs from the examples given in the policy page (I've linked them above). Saying that PUBLICFIGURE does not apply isn't an argument, if you wish to be taken seriously clarify why this case differs and why this is exceptional compared to a case of an supposed affair as in the example. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 03:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Fredrik, did you happen to actually, y'know, sorta kinda, read the source cited? If so, can you tell us what the 1-sentence long 5th paragraph says? TheValeyard (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The nutshell at WP:NPOV reads: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing any editor suggest that this article should take a side on this issue. The question is whether there is enough RS to warrant explaining the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. We're talking about a few neutrally-worded sentences about the debate. I haven't yet formed an opinion or taken a position, but let's get the question right please. The applicable policy as I see it is WP:DUE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what Mandruss says! No, TheValeyard, I did in fact not read it, because I don't have to to make my point that it is an article in a reliable source discussing the issue. I'm not taking any stance here to the validity of the claims, just that they are notable enough that it might be due to include them. It is absolutely crazy that this is seen as somehow opinionated… I would ask if you "did [.] happen to actually, y'know, sorta kinda, "read" what I suggested as an edit above? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the problem...a problem that wouldn't have been a problem if you'd read what you cited...is that 5th paragraph, which reads But the attempt to diagnose a condition in President Trump and declare him mentally unfit to serve is misguided for several reasons. Basically, the source you cite tells people to, y'know, sorta kinda knock it off with the Armchair Diagnosing. Absent a document committal to psychiatric evaluation, e.g. Amanda Bynes#Legal issues or Mischa Barton#Psychiatric confinement, this sort of thing has no place in a BLP article. TheValeyard (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No all of that is entirely irrelevant — even notable dissent of a controversial opinion should be included in an article. The error that people seem to be making here is to assume that inclusions means that the article should read "Donald Trump is mentally ill" — no-one has suggested that! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 03:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
What you're trying to do is essentially the same thing as saying "X is mentally ill", though, i.e. shove in as pile of citations of "experts" who have given their "diagnosis" from a distance, people who do say "X is mentally ill". Your own source which you declined to read said "this is why it's wrong". I agree with that assessment. TheValeyard (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

I am proposing that we change the lead sentence to:

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

It should mention that he is the current president. It was set up like that for Bush [4] and Obama[5]. It would also eliminate any confusion for people who might think there are 46+ presidents. I do realize that Trump being the current president is pretty much common knowledge, but we should never just assume that the reader knows that. Grapesoda22 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Other suggestion:

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

This sentence is more clear that it he is the current president, it complies with MOS Writing precisely, its not repeated information from the hatnote, and it isn't an akward looking sentence. Grapesoda22 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to restore the word "and" before "politician". I am personally OK with the "who is" construction, and in fact we had something like this in there a few months ago, but consensus at that time seemed against it. I would prefer at this time that we just stop the endless attempts to tweak this sentence and leave it as it is. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Already proposed and defeated. Please read the history of discussion about the first sentence, linked above. If you have a significant new argument, please present it; otherwise we don't get to keep re-raising issues until we get the desired result. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ya might be beating a dead horse here. Best to move on. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
He's not even really a television "personality anymore" (or barley at least). Even if he was being the president is way more relevant. Grapesoda22 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a businessman either since he turned over management to his sons. TFD (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh that is silly. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Carter turned his business over to a blind trust run by his mother and brother. TFD (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the fact that the redundancy still stands after being flagged by multiple people and continues to wrongly imply two disparate roles. Bod (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bodhi Peace:, I don't understand 'two disparate roles.' He's got multiple roles, does he not? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This edit (by an editor who also tried to discuss fascism accusations in the lead) is unwise. None of it is necessary or useful. And, User:Bodhi Peace seems determined to exclude from the lead that neither Trump nor Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote, which I think is essential information that has been included for months (i.e. the lead has indicated for months that Trump won less than Clinton's plurality).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Information included now. Was not aware of the importance of pointing out Clinton did not win a majority... just trying to avoid confusing language and unneeded use of the word "plurality". --Bod (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to say that Clinton did not win a majority. If she had, we would say Trump won the election although Clinton won a majority of votes. The reality is that few government leaders in the world win electoral majorities: David Cameron (37%), Justin Trudeau (39%), Angela Merkel (42%), Malcolm Turnbull (42%). But it is rare if they do not win the greatest number of votes. TFD (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
TFD, in the United States, the norm is that someone wins a majority of the national popular vote. See United States' presidential plurality victories. Even if the norm were otherwise, mentioning that Clinton did not win a majority indicates that she did not clobber Trump, which is extremely notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless there are strong third party candidates. It did not happen in 2000, 1996 or 1992. So the winner got a majority of votes in 3 out of the last 7 elections. Not the norm for the past 25 years. Saying that Trump did not win the most votes does not imply that Clinton "clobbered" him. TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It certainly leaves open that possibility, and why leave it open in the lead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Because the norm is that when the person with the second highest number of votes wins, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, that the loser did not clobber them in popular vote. The lead is supposed to summarize what happened not argue that Trump's election was or was not legitimate which no serious source challenges, unlike the 2000 election. TFD (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the lead should summarize what happened. And to say that Clinton won the popular vote, without giving any clue by how much, is a very poor summary that only indicates her achievement without indicating his achievement of holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe saying 'neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote' is relevant? The average reader probably knows Hillary won the popular vote, so to make this claim will confuse those readers. Doesn't saying, 'Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote,' say the same thing in a concise, not confusing way? Might it be better to say the election was close with Trump winning the electoral vote and Hillary winning a plurality of the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your last two questions, yes and yes. The problem is that some editors think the word "plurality" is too obscure or complicated for our readers. I think the word "plurality" is fine, and if readers don't know exactly what it means then they ought to learn. If we exclude the word "plurality" then we have to use a lot more words to expresss the same ideas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that "plurality" is a word very specific to the United States, and the English language Wikipedia is meant to cater to all English-speaking nations. The UK term "relative majority" means the same thing, but that isn't used by anyone else either. Perhaps this would be better:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

It's wordier, but it makes it clear Trump had a fairly easy EC win and that neither nominee received a majority. I don't like the recent changes to the article that have seen this material absorbed into the first paragraph, so this is provided in the earlier consensus form. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Your phrasing is clearer and more accessible. See MOS:INTRO ("Avoid difficult-to-understand terminology. Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be linked and briefly defined."), and Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary ("plurality. 1. Formal. A usually large number of things <The researchers studied a plurality of approaches>. 2. Chiefly US, technical. A number of votes ...").
MOS:TIES requires only that we not use specifically British or Canadian English in an article about an American president. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The main problem I have with this proposal is that it leaves readers with the impression that Trump may be the first president who ever won the presidency while losing the popular vote. He is the fifth, as the lead currently explains. Other editors at this talk page have also indicated that we need to preserve the lead's longstanding statement that Trump is not the first in this regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: Where does Scjessey's text suggest that Trump is the first president who ever did so? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It does not suggest that he is, it suggests that he may be, by deleting the lead's current statement that he is not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: I don't think it needs to be in the lede, where brevity is preferred. It is already fully explained in the body of the article and that should be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree brevity is preferred in the lead. The material in the lead right now is briefer than your proposal, and it includes that Trump is not the first to win the votes of fewer people than his opponent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: But we must sacrifice brevity in favor of making things easily readable, and the fact remains that "plurality" is not well understood beyond the borders of the USA. Using a few extra words to spell it out is worth it, because "plurality" is borderline obfuscation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The word is used in 5,722 Wikipedia articles. Google News currently has 88,200 hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with the word. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Dervorguilla, this is an article about an American president. We cannot use British or Canadian terms. And the 'relative majority' is wide of the mark anyway. As for the edit suggestion, it is not at all clear to the reader that Donald Trump decisively won the presidency with a clear majority of the EC which is the vote that counts. I still say we must use the dreaded word 'plurality' and Anythingyouwant agrees with that. It is the American standard in presidential elections because it goes hand in hand with the EC vote. I also agree with Anytthing that readers can look up the word if they don't know it. We're not here to spoon feed the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: This isn't an American article. It is an English language article. It is important that we use language well understood by all English-speaking people. We aren't suggesting we use Canadian/British terms, we are simply saying we need to spell it out a little bit for the vast number of English speakers who are not Americans with a close interest in this incredibly specific political terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There are many varieties of English. American English is used for articles about Americans and American subjects, especially the American president. British English is used on articles about British subjects and people. I dare you to go over to a British subject article and start removing uniquely British terms. You will not be met with open arms. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is the edit as it stands now in the article:

1.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became 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.

This is Scjessey's suggestion:

2.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.

The problem with #2 is this sentence: Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote.

Clinton never had an advantage with the popular vote. Trump broke the blue wall of Democrat states. Trump is the one with advantage with the popular vote. He played Moneyball, and started heavily campaigning in the states that had previously gone Democrat, had the biggest majority of out of work formerly middle class Democrats, and also had enough EC votes to put him over Hillary, no matter what she did in the other states. He won decisively. She won popular votes in heavily populated states like California, a state that holds a super majority of Democrats. She didn't even bother to campaign in California. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is complete bullshit. Clinton finished with an enormous, three million-vote lead in the popular vote. Ignoring that fact is ludicrous. Several "blue wall" states were decided by a tiny fraction of their total votes. You have repeatedly told this lie before on this talk page, and it needs to be called out for the mendacity it surely is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This is my RS to support my comments. Now show us your RS to support your claim that Trump did not break the blue wall. He beat her where it counted. Like a drum.
  • CNN: Trump Stomps All Over Democrats’ Blue Wall [7]
  • Forbes: How the Blue Wall Cracked [8]
  • Washington Post: Virginia for the Win: Breaking the Blue Wall [9]
  • Investors Business Daily: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California: [10]
  • New York Times Electoral Map: [11]

SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You'll say any ridiculous pro-Trump/anti-Clinton thing you can think of. Trump only won those blue states by the skin of his teeth. Just a few thousand votes here or there (a minuscule fraction of the total) and Clinton would've beaten Trump handily. But keep on living in your alternative reality if it makes you feel better. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Why do you personalize your comments against editors with these personal attacks instead of showing RS to support your claims? I've seen you do this to other editors here. Now, I've taken the time to seek out the RS. Yet, you come back with a personal attack. I don't live in an alternative reality, unless that reality includes CNN, The Washington Post, Forbes, the New York Times, and Investors Business Daily. Where's your RS? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources at United States presidential election, 2016 that tell the truth of the matter. The "blue wall" hinged on a tiny number of votes. The election was a squeaker, even if the Electoral College votes don't reflect that. And I wasn't making a personal attack at all. I was pointing out that you are wrong about the election result, and you've continued to propagate this wrongness for weeks and weeks now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Again you fail to supply specific sources to back your claims and again you make another personal attack claiming I "propagate this wrongness,' and have done so for 'weeks and weeks." You fail also to address the reliable sources I have supplied and instead again put in your POV about the outcome of the election. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming it to say I don't consider this version to be an improvement; quite the contrary. "Easily overcame" is POV and factually inaccurate. ("Squeaked by" would be more accurate.) Also, this version compares apples to oranges by listing the electoral college vote and the popular vote together in the same sentence as if they are comparable in significance; they are not. If you want to put something about the "Blue Wall" in the encyclopedia somewhere, I would suggest the article about the election. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree, 'easily overcame' is POV and factually inaccurate. Also agree with combo of electoral college and popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2 has problematic language. I'm not sure why you prefer "nominee". The use of "easily" and even "overcame" when it's more apples to oranges between the popular vote and the Electoral College. "To have done so" is not a necessary phrase as you can see in some of the rephrasing suggested below. Bod (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I may suggest

3.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump won the Electoral College, but became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the only one to have not served in military or government.

\\ Bod (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but the current version is preferable IMHO. First of all, it's not correct that Trump became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. For example, Bill Clinton got less of the popular vote in 1992 than Perot's and Bush's share of the popular vote. More importantly, this proposed version emphasizes Hillary Clinton's accomplishment in getting more of the popular vote, but omits Trump's very substantial accomplishment in holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

4.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither had a majority of the popular vote, but Trump won the Electoral College and became the fifth US president to not get a plurality of the national popular vote. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the first who had not served in military or government.

Plurality seems unavoidable. \\Bod (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect again. Many presidents did not get a plurality because they instead got a majority. The present version is much more concise and accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

5.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. On January 20, 2017, at age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior government or military service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the national popular vote.

\\Bod (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This emphasizes Hillary Clinton's achievement in getting more of the popular vote, but omits Trump's achievement in holding her to less than a majority. The current version implies she won a plurality rather than a majority, so I think the current version is preferable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: "...but omits Trump's achievement in holding her to less than a majority." What achievement? That's not an achievement. Third party candidates were able to prevent Trump or Clinton from getting a majority, but to suggest Trump held back Clinton's vote is absurd. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bodhi, I agree with Anythingyouwant on all those suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

Bodhi, I appreciate your repeated attempts to meet people's comments by modifying your proposal. It appears we are trying to cover three points here: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. (Note: not "popular votes"; the term "popular vote" is collective.) I think we should NOT try to do all that in a single sentence, because a single sentence requires a connecting word like "but" or "despite," which seems to cast doubt on his election. What we need: First sentence in the paragraph says he won. Later we say she received more votes nationwide than he did, but neither received a majority of the popular vote. The current version in the article conveys the first two points well and with appropriate weight but leaves out "neither got a majority". Your version is virtually identical with the current version except it substitutes "not winning" instead of "not a plurality", but we had been trying to avoid the word "win" with regard to the popular vote. Maybe we shouldn't be picky about that; while "win" of the popular vote is not strictly accurate (it's not a contest with a "winner"), maybe it conveys the point better than than "plurality". I would accept either this version #5 or the current version. I'm coming to think we shouldn't try to get "nobody got a majority" into the lede, but leave it for the election section. I think we came to that same conclusion before and I'm getting there again. MelanieN alt (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, please note that the current version concisely implies that neither candidate got a popular majority. That is, by saying that Trump got less than a plurality, the current version implies that HRC got a plurality, which of course is less than a majority. So, I favor the current version, and agree with you that it's unnecessary to explicitly say in the lead that neither of them got a popular majority. But, if the word plurality is removed, then I do think it would be important for the lead to mention not just her accomplishment in getting more of the popular vote, but also his accomplishment in holding her to less than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
To put it another way, I think the lead currently does all three things you mention: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. Plus it indicates 4) that Trump is not the first president to get less popular support. All in just 14 words!Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At the very least, we still need to remove the (unnecessary) "at age 70" because it confusingly makes it sound like his wealth is dependent on his age. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove "at age 70". Since it has been there a long time we will need consensus to remove it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it as a big deal, but am okay with removing "at age 70." People can look at his birth date and do the math. Does anyone care if we also change "less than a plurality" to "less than his opponent's plurality"? And change "the fifth" to "one of the few presidents"? The latter acknowledges that Hayes did not get a plurality in 1876, that Nixon may have gotten a plurality in 18761960, and that no one knows what happened before 1824.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with "less than his opponent's plurality" which is totally unclear. And I think we should retain "fifth". I don't think any Reliable Source has said "a few" or "several" or any other attempt to dodge the issue. They said either fourth or fifth, depending how they counted 1824. (Nixon? 1876???) MelanieN alt (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Instead of "less than his opponent's plurality" I think it's adequate (and clearer) to say "less than the plurality" (i.e. not "less than a plurality").Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It should say either "at least the fourth" or "at least the fifth" or "the fifth since 1824". Bod (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with "at least the fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. It makes it sound like he was inaugurated on his birthday. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that it is fine to remove his age, although it isn't a big deal. The best way to accurately capture all the information, without unnecessary implications is to say that "Hillary got a plurality of the popular vote". This shows that she was a) the top vote-getter b)less than a majority so c)Trump was less than majority and less than a plurality. Adding a simple "the" helps to break up the connection between oldest and wealthiest. It should be "government service" and it should lead with that because "military" is a subset of that.

6.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest, and the wealthiest, person to assume the presidency and the first without prior government or military service. Clinton received a plurality of the national popular vote, making Trump the fifth president elected with less than a plurality since 1824.

\\ Bod (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It repeats plurality twice. That's a bit redundant, don't you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes but if you're up for a real challenge try to rewrite it with just one "plurality". --Bod (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: drop the reference to Clinton. Just saying that Trump did not win a plurality means Clinton won it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support status quo which, by the way, is already "rewritten" with just one "plurality". Illustrating my view that at a certain point continued "improvement" creates as many problems as it solves. I see nothing seriously wrong with the current language; let it be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What about the "at age 70" issue I mentioned? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Not a serious problem to remove that, not a serious problem to keep it. I disagree that it implies a causal relationship between age and wealth. I think one has to think really hard to see that as a realistic potential problem—English prose is often imprecise and readers generally don't spend time analyzing it to that degree. The facts are correct—there are no grammatical errors—it is not unnecessarily verbose—I think that gets us past the point of diminishing returns. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Mandruss:. We've reached the point where these 'improvements' are beginning to create more problems than they can solve. The text is fine as is and I support ending this. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose "since 1824" since it immediately makes the reader wonder: "what happened before 1824? Was it commonplace before that? Why did they say that?" If we must include it, we should say "since records began to be kept in 1824". I would prefer to leave it out. Reliable Sources don't seem to have a problem with saying "fifth". MelanieN alt (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Fifth is simply fake news. Various sources say fourth.[12]. Did anyone win a plurality of the popular vote in 1876? No. Not Tilden and not Hayes (and not Nixon!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Your source says Hayes lost the popular vote. Bod (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
He did lose the popular vote. And Tilden won a majority of the popular vote. No one won a plurality of the popular vote. A plurality is "when a candidate or proposition polls more votes than any other, but does not receive a majority." That describes neither Tilden nor Hayes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
All that doesn't matter if the one elected had less than a plurality. Bod (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You really think that President Hayes was elected in 1876 with "less than the plurality" of the popular vote? No one won a plurality that year. If we change "fifth" to "fourth" then we convey a huge amount of information accurately, including that Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"less than the plurality" suggests the existence of a plurality, but "less than a plurality" does not imply the existence of a plurality as opposed to a majority. Bod (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Right. That's why the BLP presently says "less than the plurality". This informs the reader that Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. Unlike Tilden in 1876.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe 8% of the readers... Bod (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
And it currently says "fifth" and "the". Bod (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Right. It should instead say "fourth" and "the".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I agree with SW3 and Mandruss: We have now made the one improvement that seemed to have consensus, namely, removing "since age 70". Other than that I think we should keep the established consensus sentence. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN alt: I had thought we had a consensus over that removal, but the edit was reverted by Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs). Do we have an agreement on this or not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I did not read this discussion. I was going off the comment in the page markup and the "Current consensus" section at the top of this page. If consensus has changed, I suggest changing the comment and/or point 15 above to prevent this kind of misunderstanding. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that the "current consensus" section is a well-intentioned, but ultimately flawed idea. At the Barack Obama article, we had a system using an FAQ in the talk page header that worked very well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

I'm going to go ahead and remove "at age 70" again, since nobody has objected. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no real consensus here to make these changes and now you've got it poorly worded. It's a mess and I reverted it. Have a proper consensus but to pick away at it with these small, poorly constructed word changes and then to add in the redundant Clinton bit again is not consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SW3 5DL (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where was there consensus to change from "fourth" to "fifth" in the lead?

When the RFC started, the lead used the word "fourth".[13] Where was there consensus to change that? The article body says "fourth", and "fifth" is simply wrong (because the election of 1876 does not count as an instance where the election winner got less than the plurality of the popular vote). If no objection, I will revert to "fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, let me look at it. I thought "fifth" was more accurate and that the disputed one was 1824. I'll check it out and get back to you. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the Wikipedia article on the subject, United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, counts it as five. Are you saying that is incorrect, and that Wikipedia should contradict itself on this point? Yes, it's true that in 1876 someone was made president by Congress rather than by actual electoral majority. That happened in 1824 too. But the point we are making is, four previous people have become president (by whatever means) even though someone else got a larger share of the popular vote. And Trump is the fifth. I was pretty sure this article said "fifth" in the text also, but I'm not going to research the history. IMO it should say "fifth" both places. I know we have discussed this before and I thought we had agreed on that point, although we never had a formal RFC. Since then some people have argued for "at least the fifth" because we have no data before 1824. I don't like that but I will accept it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
RE: The article body says "fourth": As a matter of fact, the article text DID say "fifth", until you changed it to "fourth" earlier today. [14] So it is kind of a weak (some would say dishonest) argument for you to point out that the article body says "fourth", don't you think? MelanieN alt (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No. User:MelanieN, the footnote to that sentence (which I did not insert) says fourth.[15]. Moreover, you have not pointed to any consensus to change fourth to fifth in the lead. This is not rocket science. It is correct that Trump is the fifth person to become president while getting less of the popular vote than someone else. It is also correct that he is the fourth person to become president while getting a majority of the electoral college but less of the popular vote than his opponent (because JQ Adams did not get a majority of the electoral college). Additionally, it is also correct that Trump is the fourth person to become president while getting less than the plurality of the popular vote (because no one got a plurality in 1876). The lead is currently false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand, the article that the sentence links to is United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote which has 5 entries. Donald is #5 there so why would he be #4 here? ValarianB (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think we have the answer to your question "where was the consensus?" to say fifth. If you look at consensus #15 at the top of the page, where multiple changes were proposed but did not achieve consensus so the pre-RfC version was retained, there is a link that compares the proposed version with the pre-RfC version. BOTH versions - pre-existing and proposed - say "fifth".[16]. That makes it pretty clear that although some of the proposed changes did not have consensus, "fifth" was generally accepted - was not even in contention. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
User:MelanieN, it said "fourth" when the RFC began on 8 January. You are correct that it said "fifth" on 11 February, but it said "fourth" the day before. There was never any consensus for the edit to change it to fifth on 10 February. And the editor who made that edit later changed his mind and attempted to remove "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
All of that is largely besides the point. Donald Trump says 4th, United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote says 5th. Both cannot be correct, so figure out which one is correct and make them match. This shouldn't be a contentious issue. ValarianB (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, it shouldn't. 😳Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason it is contentious is that some Reliable Sources initially said fourth. It appeared they weren't counting 1824, possibly because one person got pluralities in BOTH the electoral college and the popular vote but lost in Congress - and they were only counting people who won the popular vote but not the electoral college. Anyhow the article on the subject clearly says five people became president even though someone else got more of the popular vote, which is what we are talking about here. The article explains in detail why each of the five qualifies to be in that category. So it seems our default should be fifth, unless someone can clearly and persuasively explain why one of the five counts at the main article but doesn't count here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The bit of minutiae you are missing is in 1876 when there was no plurality vote, only a minority and a majority. So the person pushing for "fourth" wants to make it clear that when you say "the plurality", it lumps all the elections that had plurality votes with that one where there was a majority vote. Thus, it misses the nuance that Clinton was held to less than a majority (which would be reflected in that one little phrase if it said "fourth"). However, very few people would understand that IMO. Bod (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It's important we correctly report what's in reliable sources, regardless of how many people notice the difference. And, User:MelanieN has not pointed to anything in the Wikipedia article on this subject that says anyone won a plurality in 1876, much less that Hayes won less than that plurality. Nor has Melanie shown where there was any consensus to change "fourth" to "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There are clearly five cases in the Wikipedia article "United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote"... so you are really arguing how when the phrase uses "plurality" the number should be changed to four. Bod (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"Fifth" is correct. Why are you arguing about this? See United States presidential election, 1876, Tilden won more popular votes than Hayes. Tilden won the majority of the popular vote (unlike Clinton who won the plurality, but Hayes, like Trump, still received less than a plurality). Hayes won the majority of the electoral votes (just like Trump). What is the dispute here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about Reliable Sources. Here is what they say:

The election of 1876 was sui generis in that the loser got a majority of the popular vote. That's not what happened to Hillary Clinton, because she did not get a majority of the popular vote, so it's fine for us to not lump Clinton and Tilden together as if the same thing happened to them. "Tilden was the only presidential candidate to lose a general election despite securing a popular-vote majority...."[18]

"Tilden was the only loser to win a popular vote majority...."[19] "The election of 1876 is the only election in the history of the United States in which a candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote and did not get to be president...."[20]. I therefore disagree with lumping Clinton and Tilden together. Moreover, if we decide to lump them together in the lead (which we need not do) then it ought to be described correctly instead of falsely implying that Tilden won a plurality of the popular vote. He didn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The point we are trying to get across (and the point made by most Reliable Sources) is what Anything said above: It is correct that Trump is the fifth person to become president while getting less of the popular vote than someone else. Should we just say that? It is only quibbles about the wording that reduce the number to fourth. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I would not favor that, as I explained a couple comments up (at 21:30, 17 February 2017). It also fails to say (or imply) that neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote, which is something that you previously said "we are trying to cover".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Reducing the number to "fourth" because of unexplained technicalities doesn't say that either. He is the fifth person to become president while getting a lesser share of the popular vote than someone else. That is the point. If you are not happy with current wording (it seems this is another reason to dislike "plurality"), let's find a better way to say that. Possibly what you said and I have quoted. --MelanieN alt (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It said "fourth" when the RFC began, and the person who changed it to "fifth" after the RFC closure later changed his mind.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking again at the current sentence in the article: "the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote. " Why is that not correct? All five of them received less than a plurality, didn't they? The fact that in one case the other candidate got an actual majority does not change the fact that all five people who became president did so with less than a plurality of the popular vote. --MelanieN alt (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You've misquoted what the BLP currently says. It says, "the fifth elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote." No one got a plurality in 1876.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As for that reference (or as you called it, footnote) in the text that says "fourth", I mentioned it above. It is an outlier, from Vox, which said "fourth" in the headline, lists five people who became president without gaining a plurality/majority of the popular vote, and then in a later clarification explains why it only counted four of them - because it was talking about winning the electoral college. But the point we wish to make is about becoming president, not winning the electoral college. Apples and oranges. So for a sentence about becoming president while getting a lesser share of the popular vote than someone else, we need to replace the Vox reference (which is talking about a subset of the group we are talking about) with a reference that is actually talking about becoming president - not just winning the electoral college. BTW the reason that reference gives (excluding 1824) is different from the reason that makes you want to say "fourth" (excluding 1876). I don't see any reference in the article that supports that point. --MelanieN alt (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I gave three reliable sources above (at 21:30, 17 February 2017) that show it's mixing apples and oranges to compare what happened in 1876 to any other election.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Now you could say "Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote" or "Clinton got a plurality vote, and Trump became the fourth person to ever become president after his opponent got a plurality of the popular vote". Bod (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Either of those would probably work for me (though the word "received" might be better than "got"). It would be simpler, though, to just change "fifth" back to "fourth." I'm very tempted to do so unilaterally, because there was no consensus to change "fourth" to "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Now this sentence is vague and inconsistent.

Trump received a smaller share of the popular vote than Clinton, and he is at least the fourth person to become president in such circumstances.

Bod (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Since this is so contentious, why not just say "one of few elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote" instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (though I would put "the" before "few").Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it, but I will accept it if there is consensus for it. But there's a problem, since we seem to be into quibbles absolute precision here: it's inaccurate because two of the previous four were not "elected" (unless you count selection by Congress as "elected"). How about "one of only a few people to become president with less than the plurality of the national popular vote" That's just an attempt to make this alternative a little more palatable, I still prefer the current wording. Maybe even better Bodhi's proposed wording above, "Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote". And I strongly object to changing "fifth" to "fourth", since "fifth" is used by dozens of Reliable Sources and "fourth" by only a few. (And "fourth" requires explanation as to which one we aren't counting and why.) --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I really don't like it either, you're suggesting imprecise language to describe a numerical fact. Donald Trump is the 5th, as noted by the sources. TheValeyard (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump is not the fifth billionaire president or the fifth president with a daughter named Ivanka. When you say "fifth" you have to consider the fifth what. And there definitely is uncertainty, including who got more popular votes in 1960 and before 1824. Anyway, I'm fine with "Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote". I don't recall anyone objecting to this, though my preference would be to change "fifth" back to "fourth" (or a "few").Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Anything, I was not happy with your sudden, unilateral revision[21] to the article. Ironically, just a few edits earlier you had reverted a single-word edit of Bodhi’s with the edit summary “Better to keep this stable while it's under discussion”. Now you have put a sentence and a footnote into the article that you never even proposed here before adding it. Where is the supposed consensus for “few”? Scjessey proposed it; you accepted it; I didn’t like it but said I would accept it if there was consensus; The Valeyard didn’t like it; the discussion lasted less than 6 hours. That is not a consensus in anyone’s book. Incidentally, Scjessey proposed “few” because “this is so contentious” but it is really a one-person contention; you are the only person objecting to “fifth”.

However, I see that shortly after inserting the “few” sentence (and without removing it) you indicated you would accept Bodhi’s proposed sentence ‘’“Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote."’’ Everyone else who saw that sentence accepted it too, so I am going to put in that sentence in place of the “few” version. That still does not make it a permanent, binding consensus because it is based on an informal discussion among a few people. Whatever version we retain as a result of this discussion, we should not list it as a “consensus” version at the top of this talk page unless more people participate over a longer period of time. But it’s enough of a consensus to leave in the article during discussion.

Now let’s discuss your footnote to the text section. I believe we should delete from the footnote the sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [22] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Both Anything’s revision and mine have been reverted as “no consensus”. I actually agree with that. See the section below “Changes without consensus; time to move on.” Also please see the section “New footnote in article“ to discuss the footnote added to the Election to the presidency section of the article. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Theodore Micah Tarter 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No edit was requested. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Early life / Education

These two sections are bare-bones. Like, less than 500 words for the first 22 years of someone who is presently the most powerful person on Earth. Is this era off limits somehow?

Back in the 1960s, being "packed off to military school" was generally a punishment, for incorrigible (unruly, law-breaking, violent, promiscuous, etc.) behaviour, sort of a "last chance" before reform school or prison. (The only other reason to go to military school was with West Point or Annapolis or similar as a goal.)

This is skimmed lightly over by referring to Trump as "energetic" and sorta making his parents sound like hippies wanting him "to channel his energy in a positive manner." But anyone who's actually read The Art of the Deal knows that Trump said when he was in second grade he punched him music teacher, and he has never made a secret of picking fights, intentionally breaking rules, and defying his parents, which would explain how they decided to enroll him sixty miles away at NYMA. When Donald was 17, Fred calls him "rough," and that's where it stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeb Dingle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Weeb Dingle: WP:SOFIXIT. Nothing is off limits. Be bold. Make sure to back any additions with reliable sources (no tabloids, not your own opinion) and honor WP:BLP (no gratuitous, unfounded smears). If you can dig out reliable testimonies that Donald Trump was a teenage brat, that's fair game. — JFG talk 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
"Nothing" is off limits? Really? Is that why this morning somebody had seen fit to write "false" at the top of the article? By the time I was able to log on five minutes later somebody else had already removed it, so that I did not have to. But should this article not be locked, given that the subject is rather contentious at the moment? People who are less contentious, in terms of their global reach, have had their articles locked. Alrewas (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I made the edit where the word "false" appeared in the article. It was not my intention and I have no idea how the word was included when I was making a BLP assertion. The BLP assertion remains and the claim in the Lede must accurately reflect the discussion in the body of the article which I do not think it does. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
User Veriss1 has been banned from this article for one week,[23] for editing against consensus #7. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Alrewas: The article is currently under WP:30/500 protection, which is sufficient. It has been occasionally locked for a few hours on eventful days, e.g. during the inauguration. Believe it or not, there is actually very little vandalism these days! The documentation and enforcement of consensus wordings helps stem the tide of perennial change requests for a number of ideas which have been widely debated and settled. Feel free to edit and discuss. — JFG talk 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that and vigilant admins who revert and block right away. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Of particular note is the fact that Trump frequently mentions his time at Wharton. Despite previously challenging the academic record of Barack Obama, Trump has not personally revealed details of his own academic record. In fact, a 1968 Commencement Program shared online two days ago seems to prove that he graduated without honours: http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/02/trump-academics-at-wharton BertyRussell (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The section about his Vietnam service does not belong here. It should be a separate section per Bill Clinton's article Gaas99 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's views on Islam

I tagged this page with the "Critics of Islam" category. Trump speaks of terrorism and Islam as if they were nearly synonymous. On the record, he has stated that "Islam hates us" and that there is "tremendous hatred" within the religion itself. (Source). It would be nice to add that somewhere. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this pending further discussion here. While I think the categorization might be accurate, it also seems controversial and with a highly visible BLP, I think there should be a consensus for inclusion before it is added. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments by a peronal are insufficient, you need to provide secondary sources. Also, these categories exist as a navigation device for readers who want to know more about a subject. So someone interested in anti-Islamism/Islamophobia would find it convenient to find names of people such as Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson and Frank Gaffney, who have spoken extensively on the subject and organized against Islam. Their articles cover the issue extensively. TFD (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, we should avoid category creep. BLPs should be categorized according to what their subjects are strongly associated with, otherwise we would have famous people listed in hundreds and hundreds of categories. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree we should not include it. People are constantly trying to add him to categories as a way of labeling him that would not be acceptable in the article itself. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article size

This article is pretty big and needs to be split or cut immediately. It exceeds the post-expansion include size for templates, and the templates below the "References" section will not display if there is even a single template added to this page. This is not an easy decision, so a discussion on splitting or cutting should be held ASAP. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is so big, in fact, the "prosesize.js" page size Javascript tool craps out and can't cope with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
All of his political positions have their own articles now. Just now I trimmed a lot of detail from those sections, but I think we should consider having NO detail in the policy sections - just links to the spinoff articles. We could trim a great deal of detail from the business sections as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. That would be consistent with a summary style article, which is more or less essential for a BLP on a world leader nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I am moving the articles and transcluding them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I am transcluding the sections so this article is not excessively large. I acted as per WP:BOLD, but as per WP:BRD we must discuss. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I have never seen article content transcluded that way. Transclusions do not affect article size for readability or rendering purposes. --NeilN talk to me 16:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Favonian: You declined the speedy deletion and said that it was a legitimate use of sub-page. Could you please way in on this discussion? I am not sure about the technical details of transclusion however I assumed that it did affect article size for rendering purposes, but I understand that it obviously doesn't for readability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Blush! I may have acted hastily as I haven't been able to locate any WikiScripture legitimizing this approach. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Even if their is no policy supporting this unique case, could you please explain the technical details of transculsion and if it would affect article size for rendering? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: It has no effect on rendering size. Like templates, all the HTML has to be sent and rendered on the PC. And this is far from a unique case. --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean on the user side, but on the server side. Would it or would it nor fix the WP:PEIS problem mentioned above? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: No. Read WP:PEIS please. "Whenever the parser is instructed by the source code of a page to expand a template etc. (that is, to replace it by transclusion or substitution)..." --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Emir of Wikipedia:: It was most definitely not a legitimate use of a sub-page, and transclusions do not reduce the system load for anything besides the editing interface. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

New undisclosed loan

On Feb. 23, 2017, it was revealed he has a $50 million undisclosed loan + at least $713 million additional loan[24]. Create a loan section.Kuioooooo (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this is noteworthy, unless it is by a foreign government. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Too iffy. Requires an additional source and some reason that it's notable. Objective3000 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

New footnote in article

Sentence deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 25 February 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.

A new footnote was added to the section “Election to the presidency” with this edit: [25] I believe we should delete from the footnote this sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim, except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [26] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, the cited source is about Trump, and this factoid is merely in a tiny little unobtrusive note. We say in the lead how rare this situation is, but you don't even want to mention in a footnote that it may not be so rare after all?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: you often add these so-called 'factoids' into the sources when you cannot get consensus, as you did on the sources about the draft. We should have a survey on this. These additions require consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the cited source is not "about Trump", it is about the Electoral College and some oddities of past elections; it would be fine to use it in the relevant articles, not here. Obviously it has become fashionable to hyperventilate about anything remotely related to Trump ever since that fateful day of June 2015 when he announced his candidacy. An encyclopedia should be more sober. — JFG talk 06:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it. The 1960 election and the Alabama electoral issue/debacle makes for interesting "what if?" discussions in a high school civics class, perhaps, but it is really no more than that, a passing quirk of history. They had to decide how to count those electors, and the chosen method was not loved by everyone, but decide it they did. It is fact. TheValeyard (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I still favor deleting it. OK, now you have shown us some better sources: a few books, and an essay at Real Clear Politics, that parse the Alabama votes in such a way as to put the 1960 popular vote in question. The Real Clear Politics essay makes our situation clear when it refers to "the four canonical instances where the electoral vote and popular vote went to different candidates: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000." It adds "These are fairly well known to political junkies. Far less well-known is that we should probably include a fifth such split: 1960." We are using the four "canonical instances" in this article, as are virtually all Reliable Sources. I wouldn't be surprised if there half a dozen other "far less well known" years, in addition to 1960, where some people have argued to re-analyze the votes and come up with something different from the official tally. (This is the kind of thing people have to do to earn a PhD in political science or history.) We don't need to search them out and include them. IMO we should list only the four "canonical", i.e., generally accepted instances (which are already more detail than really needed in this biography, but OK in a footnote) and we should remove the "1960" sentence. But if consensus is to retain it, it will need a much better source that the current one, which mentions the challenge only obliquely and in passing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to remove this sentence from the footnote. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 24 February 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.

It is biased to imply Trump had a special relationship with Russia

Russia was not sanctioned until 2014. Before that, every American businessman had business ties in Russia. It is a big market. Heck, even today GM and McDonald's have facilities in Russia. Implying that Trump had a special relationship with Russia because Trump had business ties in Russia is a bias that should not be tolerated on wikipedia. 69.166.122.249 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pertaining to another discussion, I have recently nuked this POV section and replaced it with a couple sentences on the Russian election intervention and Trump dossier stories. — JFG talk 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
JFG, I object to your unilaterally removing that section. We don't have room for even one sentence of Trump's view but this move was too extreme. Just today my Congressman called for an special prosecutor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: There is no consensus for these "nuke" edits, surely not an absurd analogy from an IP SPA. Please undo your edits and propose your case here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
JFG, shame on you for unilaterally deleting this whole section when you know it has been under discussion here on the talk page for days. The focus of that discussion was whether to add a sentence about Trump's denial of such a relationship; NOBODY suggested that the entire section should be nuked. If you don't restore that section, I will; consensus here is already clear that it should not have been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I believe he's referring to this section. @JFG: With 4 for and 4 against, there isn't anything close to a consensus for your edits. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for calling that earlier discussion to my attention, Coffee. I thought that discussion had died out last week; I didn't realize it had recently been revived and a proposal added to delete the whole section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the same behavior in another context that recently landed us at AE. A no-consensus discussion on talk followed by a contentious edit "per talk". SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Coffee: I do read the whole discussion as begging for serious rephrasing towards neutrality. That's what I attempted. Dissenting editors who have better ideas are obviously free to edit further. Nosecount: Jack N. Stock, PackMecEng, SW3 5DL, TFD, York12321, Stackmachine and myself thought the section was POV or UNDUE (7 editors). EvergreenFir, Casprings and ValarianB thought is was DUE but didn't comment on neutrality (3 editors). It's hard to discern what 207.245.44.6 thinks, given his admitted sarcasm. So yes I read this as "rough consensus" to rewrite. — JFG talk 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you research the English meaning of "consensus" and then read WP guidelines on "consensus" and then undo your "nuke" as you have described it. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You read it as consensus to rewrite - so you deleted it? How does that follow? We can't rewrite something that isn't there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the previous text as hopeless per WP:TNT and I rewrote a short and balanced description of the Trump–Russia controversies.[30][31] I also mentioned Trump's failed Russian projects in the real estate section.[32] As I said, editors with better ideas are free to edit further. — JFG talk 02:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I say well done nuking it. It implies Donald Trump was hurting for financing and sold out to the Russian's, in a sort of "deal with the devil." As for rewriting it, it read like one long BLP vio, which says we are to remove any vio. How is he supposed to rewite that? Delete it and start over. So now we can rewrite it with neutral sources and not the weasel POV language that the first sentence starting this off is loaded with [33]. Earlier discussion in another section was to delete it, as I recall. But that could have been something else. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

He didn't "sell out" -- he did business with them, just like thousands of other US business people, some needing financing, some needing markets for their goods, some needing materials, etc. And please don't call Russians "the devil". The reason it's become important for Trump is that some reports state that the relationship is such that he is beholden to the Russian ruling powers. When RS discuss this, it is appropriate to consider related article text. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The RS makes the Russians out to be the devil, so I used the comparison. I see problems with sources claiming, ". . .some reports state that the relationship is such that he is beholden to the Russian ruling powers." And therein lies the problem. It's casting aspersions and doing it without facts from a legitimate investigative body, like the Congress, or FBI. That then gets woven into, "The Russians hacked the election." They did no such thing. The integrity of the US election voting process, even according to Obama, was intact. No such hacking occurred. And there appears no evidence to support a claim that Trump owes the Russians so they made him president to remove the sanctions against them, and that is a claim from Rep. Maxine Waters, who did not show any sources or proof for her claim. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Affiliations with Russia

A section about affiliations with Russia raises questions of whether there should be a sections with titles such as "Affiliations with Scotland", "Affiliations with Dubai", "Affiliations with Australia", "Affiliations with Turkey", "Affiliations with Panama", "Affiliations with Canada", "Affiliations with Indonesia" and so on. Why Russia particularly? This doesn't seem to indicate WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Russia is the number 1 enemy of America since 1945. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In 2012, only 2% of Americans viewed Russia as the United States' greatest enemy, according to Gallup. In 2002, 66% of Americans viewed Russia favorably. North Korea currently tops the list as "greatest enemy" according to popular opinion. Trump would probably say the number 1 enemy of America is "radical Islamic terrorists" or ISIS. His affiliations with majority Muslim nations might be more controversial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. Russia and America are allies of course. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Because the the news has been focusing on the Russia-Trump issue for months now. That relationship is notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I would concur. Historically significant.Casprings (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we should scrap the picture in the section. Don't really need propaganda pictures in there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
One representative picture of dissent isn't propaganda. It makes the article more WP:N, which it isn't with the current picture set. I would suggest adding a pic of the woman's march also, for example.Casprings (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The section isn't about dissent, its about his past ties with Russia. So I fail to see how the picture is representative of the section. Also it is a form of propaganda, a biased representation to promote a political cause. So it is unrelated to the recently added section, and it should be removed. As an aside, reference 506 is broken and 503/508 are the same link. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Affiliations with Russia" has some problems. Firstly, it suggests Trump has some connection to the Russian government, which is false. Secondly, at best, he's had business dealings with private citizens, I don't see evidence he's had business dealings with the Russians. Did he build something for the Russian government? The title is problematic and should be put under "International business deals." Given the reporting in the press and the inuendos that he's involved with Putin, the word "Russian" is misleading and should be removed. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not false. Members of his campaign had multiple connects with the Russian Government. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html and it says it does business with Russian citizens, which is true and supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
What members of his campaign did is not relevant, and I think they've denied these claims. This is Trump's BLP. If he's had business dealings, then it should be Business dealings in Russia, not "Affliations with Russia" which clearly implies links to the Russian State, and is misleading. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. It is his campaign, as it was his business. Given the environment of Russian interference in the election and his former National Security Advisors interactions with Russian officials, affiliations with Russia, which are supported by WP:RS, are notable and important for the article.Casprings (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is misleading though as sources have discussed Donald Trump personally and his affiliations and relations to the Russian government. The timeline of Trump's ties with Russia lines up with allegations of conspiracy and misconduct, Donald Trump, Julian Assange and Russia: How they’re connected, and how they changed an election. ValarianB (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The second article is an op-ed and therefore not reliable for facts. The first article says, "A dossier of unverified claims alleges serious conspiracy and misconduct in the final months of the 2016 presidential campaign." If we mention it at all, we cannot present "unverified claims" as facts. TFD (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with @The Four Deuces: we cannot present 'unverified claims.' See WP:BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If we decide that "Affiliations with Russia" or even "Business dealings in Russia" are worthy of a special section, should that also apply under "Foreign policy"? Does it follow that there be a sub-sub-section titled "Russia" in the foreign policy sub-section? Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's more relevant to the article on his presidency. We do not know yet what his policy will be, although it appears to be the same as Obama. TFD (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As Jacknstock mentioned earlier, US opinion of Russia only dropped after the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Even though it is very likely that Russia is at fault, I believe that it is not a valid reason to write an entire section/article on Trump and Russia's relationship just because he has a relationship with Putin and a few other people. Trump is a businessman, and businessmen do these things. York12321 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This whole section should be nuked as POV-pushing. The linked article is about Trump's failed business projects in Russia; trying to do business in a country does not make you "affiliated" to its government. The rest of the section consists of hyped-up political allegations about some of Trump's campaign advisers, better covered in other articles. I fail to see why this deserves a level-2 header in the full biography. Delete it or move it to the business section. — JFG talk 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I agree with every point you are making. I've tried getting over this point. The word "Affiliation" suggests ties to the Russian government. There's no evidence of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be nuked as POV-pushing. I was reading the article today and found this section has at least one serious inaccuracy. The sentence "Moreover, multiple members of his campaign and administration, including Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Michael Flynn, had extensive financial and business ties." It references a Time magazine article (Ref# 344). Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia This article does not support the statement at all, other than a second-hand quote from an Op-Ed author. Not a good reference. Stackmachine (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be rough consensus for removing this section, so I did the nuking and added a couple sentences elsewhere to summarize the US accusations of Russian intervention in favor of Trump and his denial thereof. — JFG talk 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that this discussion had been revived, or that a proposal had been made to remove the whole section (which by the way had been changed to "Ties to Russia" rather than "Affiliations with Russia", and was no longer a level-2 heading). I object to its removal, and I think it should be restored. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is consensus. This section is well sourced and should remain. It is one of the more notable aspects of the bio.Casprings (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Support keeping this section in, as I said elsewhere. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that it would be a main section. Subject is important to campaign and presidency.Casprings (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's war on the media

This is an article which should be written. It is a very notable and huge topic, with myriad sources. The seriousness of the subject is also of great importance, since it is possibly the greatest threat to America and democracy we have ever witnessed. Here is just one source to whet your apetites:

  • <ref name="England_2/24/2017">{{cite web | last=England | first=Charlotte | title=Donald Trump's war on media is 'biggest threat to democracy' says Navy SEAL who brought down Osama Bin Laden | website=The Independent | date=February 24, 2017 | url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-war-media-press-threat-democracy-navy-seal-osama-bin-laden-william-h-mcraven-operation-a7596856.html | accessdate=February 25, 2017}}</ref>

Who wants to start writing it? If I had the time, I'd do it, but I'm busy on other stuff. It could start as a section here, and then get split off when it gets too large for this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like it is becoming a noteworthy topic, but if it happens it needs a title that is less Mother Jones/Democratic Underground-ish. "Donald Trump's media relations", as I'm sure there will be room to discuss his friendly relations with Fox, Breitbart, etc... TheValeyard (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The Admiral seems to be selling a narrative made for the college lecture circuit. Agree an article title like that would not work. Violates NPOV. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I like TheValeyard's suggestion, since it allows for Trump's relations with those sources which always portray him favorably. That also satisfies SW3 5DL's concern about NPOV. Both Donald Trump's media relations or Donald Trump's relationship to the media work fine. A rather large section would still be devoted to his war on any source that doesn't exclusively praise him (the sources he labels "fake news").
The link I provided above is just one of myriad possible sources, and the section title is a very common theme, hence the subject's notability. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_50&oldid=1077843774"