Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political positions of Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151125105242/http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/apia-education/education/school-choice/donald-trump-on-school-choice/ to http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/apia-education/education/school-choice/donald-trump-on-school-choice/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening Statement

"On specific policy, Trump has been described as a moderate Republican.[3] His politics have been described as populist,[4] nativist,[5][6][7] protectionist[8][9] and authoritarian[10][11] by a variety of sources."

...Should we include this? It doesn't necessarily describe Trump's views and seems irrelevant to the rest of the article. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

On the flip side, I think it accurately portrays the range of the way his policies are viewed with some seeing populism and detractors seeing authoritarianism. | MK17b | (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

His politics have also been described by many mainstream pundits, politicians, scholars, and media outlets as adhering to fascist political ideology of which populism, nativism, protectionism, and authoritarianism are hallmarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.130.222 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What is Trump's position on campaign finance reform / overturning unlimited secret contributions via dark pools?

What is Trump's position on campaign finance reform / overturning unlimited secret contributions via dark pools?

Does he have a plan?

Ocdcntx (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What is Trump's position on global warming science, role of human contributions, or plan to reduce environmental impacts?

What is Trump's position on global warming science, role of human contributions, or plan to reduce environmental impacts?

This Chart Shows Where All the Candidates Stand on the World's Biggest Issue

Ocdcntx (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

kurds

What does he think about kurdish autonomy in Turkey, Iraq, Syria etc?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Who created/edited this page?

I have a feeling this page is completely written by some left-wing lunatic. No surprise though since this is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8B09:7E00:E0E6:563A:2280:9904 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The history suggests that it was written by a lot of different people. Did you find an error somewhere? Horatio (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Jobs

There ought to be a section on Trump's plan to create jobs, though the the only sources I've said say that he plans to be a "jobs president" without any discussion of policy. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Bias from PolitiFact statements

I've noticed that at the end of many sections, there are statements taken from PolitiFact that seem to be biased against Trump's views. I don't see these statements on other canidates' political positions pages. While they may be factual, they're presented in a fashion that is intentionally biased and should be removed. Adervae (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. If the purpose of the article is to list Trump's political positions, it seems out of place to have discussions or rebuttals of each position. Just record what the guy says and give links to any relevant articles about the topics, where they can be discussed in full. Horatio (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree, feel free to edit accordingly, but keep in mind that neutral analyses of his positions are okay as long as they don't advance other political positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

PolitiFact is a highly reliable source (Pulitzer Prize winner with high journalistic standards, widely recognized, etc.). It is not biased in any meaningful sense. And PolitiFact is particularly valuable on this article, since Trump has made many conflicting statements over time about his own political positions.

Horatio: The point of this article is not merely to list Trump's political positions, but to encyclopedically describe Trump's political views and how they relate to the rest of the world - i.e., what the fiscal, practical, and social impact would be (according to subject-matter experts, commentators, etc.); how Trump's political views are situated on the wider political spectrum; and who Trump has relied upon to formulate his views. So while Trump's own statements and policies will naturally be at the core of this article, we are not limited to them. Neutrality^talk 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Usually when people make contradictory statements over time, we say that their position has changed or evolved. We don't say that they've contradicted themselves, unless they continue to say things at this time that are contradictory. If a cited source insists on calling a change of position a "contradiction", then I don't think we have to treat that source as neutral, nor do we have to refrain from saying his position changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: we follow the reliable sources. Politifact is a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We ought to follow a spectrum of reliable sources without excessive reliance upon any one of them, and the most reliable ones are the best ones for us. Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times, which has endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016. A Bernie Sanders supporter has written about possible bias by Politifact in considerable detail, and should be taken seriously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The endorsement is immaterial. The news side and the editorial side of a newspaper are separate. You're entitled to disbelieve Politifact if you like, but the fact remains that they are a well-regarded and often invaluable source. Neutrality^talk 14:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The piece at Paste (magazine) is titled Politifact Gives Clinton Significantly More Coverage Than It Gives Sanders, and Some of it is Dead Wrong. I don't think we should completely ignore criticism like that. We need to rely on a spectrum of reliable sources, without excessive reliance on this one. What's nonsensical about that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If there are well-sourced criticisms of Politifact, you're welcome to add them to the article on Politifact, taking care so that the criticisms are proportional to the article. Nothing in the Paste magazine piece changes Politifact's general reliability and usefulness. Neutrality^talk 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality I think has adequately proved the notability of Politifact as a source. The answer to the concern of bias with Politifact would be to find other reliable sources challenging their specific analysis here. In the lede Politifact is describing correctly a phenomenon here that other sources trying to understand Trump's positions have also noted, which is that Trump frequently contradicts himself, and uses vague language that makes it difficult to concretely understand his views. Heck, we even have a quote from Trump in the lede where he effectively admits of this fact.Spudst3r (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Placing opinions of opinion writers into the lead

Putting opinions of opinion writers into the lead,seems unnecessary and unencyclopedic, and gives those opinions undue weight. If we want the lead to include adjectives that describe Trump's political positions, I think we ought to use adjectives from neutral and reliable sources. At most, we should summarize that section of the article by saying in the lead that his policies have been characterized by opinion writers in many different ways, or something like that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope. So long as we properly attribute points of view when appropriate, it is perfectly acceptable (and indeed encyclopedically required) to note the descriptions of third parties. Saying "his views have been classified in different ways" is terribly vague and indeed useless to the reader. Neutrality^talk 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not objecting to having a section about this. But you acknowledge that these opinions are biased, and yet we do not say in the lead that they are biased, and moreover these biased opinions are given undue weight by occupying so much of the lead (compared to the space they occupy later in the article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe opinion-based labels by commentators should be included in the lede. That seems to be the approach taken for the lede to Political positions of Hillary Clinton, which just includes very vague statements that she "took stances" and "didn't take stances".CFredkin (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Neutrality^talk 17:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "we do not say in the lead that they are biased." We already distance ourselves from the statements by saying that they are descriptors by commentators; I'm not sure what more you reasonably expect us to do. Neutrality^talk 17:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We just give a bunch of names without saying who they are.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Readers can easily click on the wikilink, or go to the reference. Not difficult. Neutrality^talk 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, it provides undue weight to the opinions of a selected group of commentators to include them in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The commentators cited span the ideological spectrum, and indeed have given different views/perspectives on Trump's beliefs. That is exactly what a lead section ought to do: reflect the broad sweep of thought on the topic, presenting and summarizing it fairly. You've given no indication that you think any particular group or school of thought was neglected; if you believe that, you should be more specific. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Manual of Style/Linking, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links...." In the lead, making readers chase links is especially bad writing. Not only do we drop a bunch of names without saying who they are, but we present each one's POV without saying whether anyone disagrees with it. The lead would be vastly better if we would confine ourselves to characterizations attributable to reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay we need to take a step back and actually look at the sentence in question, because the premise being made here that these labels are only the "opinions" of "opinion-writers" is highly misleading. The statement in question reads:

Trump's politics have variously been described by commentators as right-wing populist,[5] nativist,[6] protectionist,[7]authoritarian,[8] "populist authoritarian",[9] and moderate Republican.[10]

This sentence is a carefully extracted summary of the most common words used to describe Trump's politics and worldview. (Though I think 'populist authoritarian' could be removed for redundancy). The premise that these labels are only the sole opinions of a few journalists is wrong. Their purpose within the article are to describe Trump in the way a political scientist would, by labeling in a broad way descriptors for how this person's politics maps into known political & ideological movements.

The labels used in this sentence to describe his worldview represent a summary of what an overwhelming number of notable sources have variously used to describe Trump's belief structure and political movement. I would challenge you to come up with a sentence to accurately describe Trump's ideological position that is more concise than this one. In fact the sentence's phrasing does a lot to prevent accusations of WP:Undue because it fairly lists every notable label used to classify Trump's politics, without special attention being given to any particular label.

Finally, while it may be okay to quote specific journalists to back up these labels within the article itself, I think doing so is unnecessary for the lede since it interrupts the flow of the statement given the number of labels involved.Spudst3r (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree fully with this. Neutrality^talk 13:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. The sentence represents broad viewpoints and thus is appropriate weight. The sentence and it's half dozen sources should be restored.- MrX 19:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If it's incorrect that these labels are only the opinions of certain opinion writers, then you should have no problem finding reliable sources that say so. As things stand now, we're citing opinion pieces that do not necessarily reflect the views of reliable sources, although I've just expanded the pertinent section of this article to also include views of reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you're as capable of doing a Google news search as I am. Please do so and report back on any of the descriptions (right-wing populist, nativist, protectionist, authoritarian, and moderate Republican) which are not covered by multiple journalists or in multiple publications and then we can talk about leaving them out of the lead.- MrX 20:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I have already begun to edit the section in question, to add categorizations that are supported by reliable reporting, not just opinion pieces by opinion writers. The burden is not on me to keep doing so, and opinions of individual columnists should not be presented in the lead, especially not as objective truth. I also think it's not out of line to say that you know better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that any political description that can only be sourced to a single opinion columnist should not be included in the lead. On the other hand, if several journalists describe Trump's politics the same, those descriptions belong. After all, this is an article about his political positions. Also, the sentence in question does not state any of those descriptions as objective truth. It says "Trump's politics have variously been described by commentators..." The objective truth is that the descriptions were made (by commentators).- MrX 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if a couple pundits both say something in common about Trump, if not one of the thousands of reliable sources on planet Earth say it too? Sure, we can have that in a section of the article, but I just don't see why it would be sufficiently notable for the lead. And if three notable pundits say something about Trump, and one notable pundit says they're wrong, then including the former in the lead while omitting the latter would not be proportionate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky comments

I know he's not an expert on climate change, but aren't these commments in a documentary about America's leading contemporary philosopher rather notable: [1]? What he says about Trump seems eminently sensible, not just on climate change, although admittedly that really is a bit of a headliner. I'm not sure where the best place would be to mention these, maybe in another article? This just seems the most relevant location for something about climate change. It's quite sobering, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The best place would probably be the article about Noam Chomsky, I think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why ?????

Is it not a bit ridicoulous to waste so much space on utterings from a political campaign? I mean if the guy is not elected 99 % of this stuff will never be mentioned again (unless "discussing under influence") and now you guys prepare to immortalize him? Nobody is going to erase this entry once it is over! Kipala (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

He's one of the two leading candidates, so I don't think it's wasteful to record what he says. Wikipedia isn't short of space, as far as I know. After the election, if he wins it will be interesting to compare what he does with what he said before he was elected. If he loses, it simply becomes part of history, and there would be no reason to delete it. Horatio (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The political platforms of failed candidates are of sufficient academic/public/media interest to be encyclopedic, I think. I would agree that there are certain articles of failed candidates that should be deleted (e.g., political positions of Bob Barr should be merged into Bob Barr—if you nominate for AfD, I will support!), but as for the nominees of the two major political parties for president, I think we're on firm footing. Neutrality^talk 13:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfair removal of think tank takes

"CFredkin" once again removed material for the dubious reason that "If these reports are significant they will be mentioned in secondary sources". This is the same excuse that he uses to remove research published in the best academic journals on the NAFTA page and remove the candidates' own statements on the 'Pol Positions of H Clinton' page. If he were to do a short google search, he'd easily find secondary sources that mention these reports and the people writing them. If he can't , that shouldn't matter either, as these are known think tanks and notable sources (if we're going to mention that economists at CATO disagree, why shouldn't the section source a CATO piece?!). This is a nuisance edit. The least he can do is ask for permission because this "If these reports are significant they will be mentioned in secondary sources" surely doesn't fly with anyone else. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Mention of an organization's views on Trump's positions by a reliable secondary source is a perfectly reasonable bar for inclusion in the article. It's not clear why you should be the arbiter of whether organizations' views are notable for inclusion here as primary sources, especially after you completely cast off good faith with this edit where you didn't bother to include Trump's full quote on the subject of trade wars.CFredkin (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

1) These are the think tanks and pieces that are mentioned in a slew of media reports about Trump and trade. If you were to spend 10 seconds googling "think tank X" and "Trump trade", you'd find these stories and be able to insert the secondary sources instead of deleting others' edits and asking everyone else to waste their time meeting your bizarre standards. Is it that much to ask that you spend a few seconds of your time looking for secondary sources given that you're, as far as I can tell, the only person on this website who won't accept any other type of sources? Wouldn't that be a reasonable path forward on this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

2) I don't mind adding the full quote but I don't see it as necessary either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snoogans. While reporting by a reliable media organization surely helps to support the idea that a certain piece of text is noteworthy, absolutely no policy or guideline bars a citation to the reports and analyses of think tanks (particularly mainstream, well-recognized ones). The findings and conclusions of such think tanks are often extremely helpful and unquestionably citable, although in-text attribution is often called (e.g., when the finding or conclusion is contentious). Neutrality^talk 13:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been posted at talk:Stop Trump movement#RfC: Should this article list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump?. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Torture vs. "interrogation"

Re CFredkin's edits here and my edits here:

By way of compromise, I would accept a section header that heads "Torture and interrogation techniques" (rather than just "torture"). But I strongly object to a section header that merely says "interrogation techniques" and a section that does not make clear (as the cited sources already do) that Trump has been express in his support for torture. To do so would downplay a major position that Trump has been completely explicit about; e.g.:

• CNN: "Donald Trump is casting aside any doubt about his position on torture: He's in favor of it."
• Washington Post: "Trump is setting himself apart by promising not just to fight terrorists but also to torture them..."
• New York Times: "Warning of U.S. Attacks, Donald Trump Advocates Allowing Torture"
• NPR: "Trump has repeatedly called for the United States to 'torture' terrorism suspects."

Given what the sources say, there is absolutely no justification to beat around the bush. Y

As far as CFredkin's addition that says: "According to NPR, most advocates of enhanced interrogation techniques distinguish between waterboarding and torture" — I'm fine with including something like this, but I think it is essentially mandatory to mention (and I have added) text that says something like (also per a different article from the same source NPR): "Waterboarding is, in fact, widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate." I've stuck both statements in a short footnote. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin:: You should engage here, rather than continue to revert. (And, when making reversions, you frequently remove unchallenged material as well without explanation. You even restored typos and the wrong URL in a cite which I had corrected). It comes across as quite rude. Neutrality^talk 15:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagging @MrX: and @Snooganssnoogans:, who have recently edited. Feel free to tag others. Neutrality^talk 15:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been closely following this kerfuffle hard here at this Wikipedia article, or in the campaign. If "Trump has been express in his support for torture", could someone please quote him here expressly endorsing "torture"? Thanks. And please stop canvassing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to tag others who have edited recently. As for a quote, read literally any of the articles cited above. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 15:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody needs to quote Trump. We need to do is follow sources which plainly say that he has advocated torture.[2] You should have watched the Republican debates in which he was pretty unequivocal about his position on the subject of torture.- MrX 16:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of Trump's statements in favor of torture. My previous edits, as well as the proposal below, include statements to that effect. I'm mainly objecting to the inclusion of the term "torture" in the section header. When a candidate advocates tax increases or decreases, the section header doesn't say "Tax Increases/Decreases", it says "Taxes". Similarly here I think the section header should identify the topic, not the stance.CFredkin (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Also @Neutrality:, please don't lecture me about reverting to Talk. This disagreement was initiated by your Bold edit. Arguably you should have reverted to Talk sooner. I didn't intend to revert your other non-contentious edits here, but I'll apologize for doing so.CFredkin (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This disagreement, from my perspective, was occasioned by your removal of very well-sourced content. I don't think I've removed any substantive new content added by you to this section, but the reverse is not true.

I accept your apologies with respect to the non-contentious edits. I would appreciate it if you were to restore those non-contentious edits. (I think we can all agree that it is helpful to narrow the scope of the issues in dispute).

As for the "stance vs. topic" issue—the topic is torture though. All the sources speak of it in these terms, Trump himself speaks of it in these terms. In that sense, "torture" is analogous to "capital punishment"—the section header is the topic and the text explains the stance. Neutrality^talk 17:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the edits that 'Neutrality' proposes above except that I would opt for "enhanced interrogation techniques" as the title of the section. That's a label that Trump uses (see: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/15/donald-trump-torture-enhanced-interrogation-techniques-editorials-debates/80418458/), though it's understood by most to refer to torture. When explicitly asked if he supports torture, he seems to support it though he doesn't identify it as torture. See the Stephanopoulos-Trump exchange (here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/08/donald-trumps-answer-on-torture-is-really-out-there-even-for-trump/) where Stephanopoulos asks him point blank if he would authorize torture and Trump answers "I would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding", which seems pretty clear. So I think it's fair to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" as the title of the section while the text in the section would contain content such as the Stephanopoulos-Trump exchange and other stuff indicating rather clear support for torture. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would the following be acceptable? (I believe this is what Snoogans is proposing.)CFredkin (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a counterproposal, posted below. Your proposal still omits Trump's express support for torture and is duplicative in some parts. I have tweaks which (I hope) are partially on the way toward compromise.

As for Snoogans - my under standing is that Snoogans wrote about that he supported my edits, but with an amendment to the title. He can speak for himself, of course, but that was my understanding. Neutrality^talk 17:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My proposal includes Trump's actual statements regarding torture. You've repeatedly indicated that to be preferable to blanket statements in the corresponding article for Clinton. Why not in your proposal here? In this edit, you made the exact same argument I'm making here. What's different about these 2 scenarios?

Your section header also continues to include "Torture" despite the objections stated above, and you've removed the statement from NPR regarding the distinction between waterboarding and torture.CFredkin (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My consistent position has been in favor of a balance between direct quotes from the individual and summaries from news sources. (Over on the other page, for example, I've added well-supported statements like "Clinton's stance on illegal immigration has softened over time" (diff) and "Clinton's views on marijuana were described as similar to the ... the Obama administration" (diff)—which are both "blanket statements" (really, summaries) of what the reliable sources say.

I have not removed the NPR statement. My version includes the following cited text: According to NPR, waterboarding "is, in fact, widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate,"[NPR cite 9] although "defenders of such techniques commonly do not accept that they meet the definition of "torture."[NPR cite 1] Do you object to that rendering? Neutrality^talk 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal does not include the statement: 'According to NPR, most advocates of enhanced interrogation techniques distinguish between waterboarding and torture. Trump makes no such distinction and has referred to waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture"', which you had previously indicated you were ok with.

Also, the diff I provided in my previous post was of you insisting that Clinton's actual words be used in lieu of and despite the fact that multiple sources indicated that she supported a possible military strike on Iran in their headlines. That is exactly analogous to the situation here, but you are making the exact opposite argument.CFredkin (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity, here you go—an edit on the Clinton article to make the bit more explicit. Further discussion on that article should really go on that talk page. (Also, the Clinton text dealt with her statement at a particular point in time. Here, we are interested in summarizing Trump statements over a long period of time).

As for NPR — my version basically says that same thing—that (1) the majority view regards waterboarding as torture; that (2) "defenders of such techniques commonly do not accept that they meet the definition of 'torture'" (direct quote); that (3) Trump agrees with the majority that waterboarding is torture; yet (4) is OK with it nevertheless. My version also include the " minimal form of torture" quote from Trump, just in a different place in the section...

We could change that language to something like the following (this would not be ideal, but I'd accede to it if it would help resolve the issue and the section was otherwise clear and complete):

According to NPR, waterboarding "is, in fact, widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate,"[NPR cite 9] although Trump adviser Walid Phares and other advocates and defenders of such techniques disagree. [NPR cite 1] Trump himself "draws no such distinctions," classifying waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture." [NPR cite 1]

Neutrality^talk 18:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed edit to the NPR content removes its main point regarding the potential distinction between torture and waterboarding.CFredkin (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the statement regarding Hillary's support for a military strike on Iran was removed in a bulk edit by another editor. I restored it in the diff you provided above. You then restored it in the diff I provided. I then accepted it as consensus and moved on. You're now arguing that sensational headlines must be included as definitive statements here, while only benign headlines can be used for that purpose at the corresponding article on Hillary. That's not reasonable at all.CFredkin (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is simply wrong to classify the large volume of content on Trump's support for torture as "sensational headlines." These are multiple high-quality news sources reporting and summarizing what Trump over a period of months. To say it is mere "sensational headlines" is just ipse dixit.

Your statement about my argument is a pure straw man; the "only benign headlines" bit is particularly silly rubbish. There is plenty of critical content at the Hillary article that I have no objection to. I've even added such content myself....

As for NPR, I'm really not sure how much more clear we can get, except to say:

According to NPR, waterboarding "is, in fact, widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate."[NPR cite 9] Trump adviser Walid Phares and other advocates and defenders of waterboarding disagree, contending that this and similar techniques are not torture. [NPR cite 1] Trump himself "draws no such distinctions," classifying waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture." [NPR cite 1]

Neutrality^talk 18:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Interrogation techniques (CFredkin proposal)

Trump has repeatedly promised to reinstate waterboarding for terrorism suspects. According to NPR, most advocates of enhanced interrogation techniques distinguish between waterboarding and torture. Trump makes no such distinction and has referred to waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture". He has also stated that he would support interrogation techniques "a hell of a lot worse" than waterboarding. Waterboarding is widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate. although "defenders of such techniques commonly do not accept that they meet the definition of "torture."

Trump has said: "Don't tell me it doesn't work — torture works" and "we have to beat the savages." When asked about his comments on CNN, Trump said, "They're chopping heads of Christians and many other people in the Middle East." Trump said, "They're chopping heads off. They laugh at us when they hear that we're not going to approve waterboarding ... It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

Trump's opinion is at odds with the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, released in 2014, stated that the used of enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA was "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees." In March 2016, a group of foreign policy experts (including both neoconservatives and prominent realists, such as Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard K. Betts) published a letter in Foreign Policy magazine, entitled "Defending the Honor of the U.S. Military from Donald Trump," against Trump's statements that he would direct the military to torture suspected terrorists and their families and target the families of terrorists and other civilians, stating that "every reputable legal expert we know has deemed [these activities] illegal."

At a Republican primary debate in March 2016, when asked whether the U.S. military would obey orders to torture in violation of international law, Trump stated: "Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them." The following day, Trump softened his position, saying that he would "not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters." Several weeks later, Trump called for a change in the law to legalize torture. Trump referred to those who "came up with this international law" as "eggheads" and said that opposing torture was a "political decision."CFredkin (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Looks reasonable to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Torture and interrogation techniques (Neutrality proposal)

During his 2016 presidential campaign, "Trump has repeatedly called for the United States to 'torture' terrorism suspects." Trump "has repeatedly called for the use of waterboarding and other unidentified techniques that are even more severe"—what Trump has called "a hell of a lot worse" than waterboarding.

Trump has referred to waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture." According to NPR, waterboarding "is, in fact, widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate," although "defenders of such techniques commonly do not accept that they meet the definition of "torture."

On the effectiveness of torture, Trump has said: "Don't tell me it doesn't work — torture works" and "we have to beat the savages." Trump has said: "They're chopping heads of Christians and many other people in the Middle East. ... They laugh at us when they hear that we're not going to approve waterboarding ... It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work." Trump has said that if waterboarding "doesn't work, they deserve it anyway."

Trump's statement that "torture works" runs counter to the 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, which concluded that the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques was "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees." In March 2016, a group of foreign policy experts (including both neoconservatives and prominent realists, such as Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard K. Betts) published a letter in Foreign Policy magazine, entitled "Defending the Honor of the U.S. Military from Donald Trump," against Trump's statements that he would direct the military to torture suspected terrorists and their families and target the families of terrorists and other civilians, stating that "every reputable legal expert we know has deemed [these activities] illegal."

At a Republican primary debate in March 2016, when asked whether the U.S. military would obey orders to torture in violation of international law, Trump stated: "Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them." The following day, Trump reversed his position, saying that he would "not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters." Several weeks later, Trump called for a change in the law to legalize torture. Trump referred to those who "came up with this international law" as "eggheads" and said that opposing torture was a "political decision."

References

@Neutrality: It might be very helpful if you would instead repeat the version proposed by User:CFredkin, but with strikethrough to indicate stuff you cannot accept and bold for stuff that CFredkin did not include. That would greatly simplify and clarify the discussion, IMO. Also, I don't like repeatedly using the word "repeatedly" in your first paragraph, wlinking should not be done within a quotation, and any quotation would best be attributed inline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm posting a revised version below, that omits wikilinks within the quotations (replacing them with a main article link at the top of the subjection); cuts the second use of the word "repeatedly"); and makes other revisions in response to my dialogue with CFred, above. I will note the differences from CFred's version. Neutrality^talk 20:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Torture and interrogation techniques (revised proposal)

Main articles: Torture and the United States and enhanced interrogation techniques

During his 2016 presidential campaign, "Trump has repeatedly called for the United States to 'torture' terrorism suspects." Over the course of the campaign, Trump has frequently said that if elected president, he would resume the use of waterboarding and other, more severe unidentified techniques—what Trump has called "a hell of a lot worse" than waterboarding.

According to NPR, waterboarding is "widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate," Trump adviser Walid Phares and other advocates and defenders of waterboarding disagree, contending that this and similar techniques are not torture. Trump himself "draws no such distinctions," classifying waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture."

On the effectiveness of torture, Trump has said: "Don't tell me it doesn't work — torture works" and "we have to beat the savages." Trump has said: "They're chopping heads of Christians and many other people in the Middle East. ... They laugh at us when they hear that we're not going to approve waterboarding ... It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work." Trump has said that if waterboarding "doesn't work, they deserve it anyway."

Trump's statement that "torture works" runs counter to the 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, which concluded that the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques was "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees." In March 2016, a group of foreign policy experts (including both neoconservatives and prominent realists, such as Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard K. Betts) published a letter in Foreign Policy magazine, entitled "Defending the Honor of the U.S. Military from Donald Trump," against Trump's statements that he would direct the military to torture suspected terrorists and their families and target the families of terrorists and other civilians, stating that "every reputable legal expert we know has deemed [these activities] illegal."

At a Republican primary debate in March 2016, when asked whether the U.S. military would obey orders to torture in violation of international law, Trump stated: "Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them." The following day, Trump reversed his position, saying that he would "not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters." Several weeks later, Trump called for a change in the law to legalize torture. Trump referred to those who "came up with this international law" as "eggheads" and said that opposing torture was a "political decision."

References

Above is a revised proposal with revisions suggested above. The major differences between CFred and this revised proposal, so far as I can tell:

• My title differs.
• My first paragraph has a different first sentence (topic sentence), beginning the section by noting Trump's statements in support of torture. The rest of the paragraph is quite similar.
• My second paragraph is drawn from my back-and-forth with CFred, above.
• CFred's second paragraph and my third paragraph are also very similar. My version links to the effectiveness of torture for interrogation article and my version has an additional sentence at the end: Trump has said that if waterboarding "doesn't work, they deserve it anyway."[12][13]. I also correct a duplicate "Trump said" error. I don't think anybody has objected to these changes.
• The second-to-last paragraph is essentially identical There are minor wording differences ("is at odds with" vs "runs counter to" and report "concluded that" vs report "stated that")
• The last paragraph is identical except that CFred's version uses "softened" and I used "revise."

So essentially, the major differences I see relate to the first sentence and title. Neutrality^talk 20:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Re the last bullet above, actually your latest proposal changes my "softened" to "reversed". You use "softened" to describe Hillary's reversal of position in her article, but for some reason that's unacceptable here. You're repeatedly trying to enforce a double standard between the 2 articles. How can you possibly justify that?CFredkin (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, it because we follow what the sources say. The source material for the Hillary statement says: "supporters, opponents say Clinton has softened her stance on illegal immigration." On the Trump piece, the source material (NBC) characterizes Trump's shift in position as a reversal: "He then reversed this position the very next day." The Wall Street Journal used the same language: "Trump Reverses His Stance on Torture..." Again, we follow the sources. Neutrality^talk 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

As an additional point regarding my belief that Neutrality's proposals put undue weight on references to "torture", in looking at the titles for the references provided for Neutrality's proposals, I count 4 references to "torture" and 11 references to "waterboarding". However there are 14 references to "torture" and 6 references to "waterboarding" in Neutrality's first proposal, and 15 references to "torture" and 7 references to "waterboarding" in the second proposal.CFredkin (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you're seemingly contradicting yourself - further up the page, you said that you didn't have a problem with mentioning "torture" in the body of the section, so long as the word "torture" was excised from the headline. Now you object to following what the sources plainly say in the body as well. If you think a word appears too often, point out how it could be rephrased without removing substantive content. Neutrality^talk 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'll try to address these points bulleted by Neutrality, as time permits. On the heading, the issue is whether it should say "interrogation techniques" or "torture and interrogation techniques", or something else. Trump has said: “If he would've talked you might not have had the blow up - all these people dead and all these people wounded because he probably knew about it. We have to be smart. I mean it's hard to believe we can't waterboard -- listen, nothing's nice about it, but it's your minimal form of torture. Waterboarding would be fine. If they can expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding." On waterboarding, he's also said "nobody knows if it's torture." I think it's clear that he supports waterboarding as a form of interrogation (not for fun or for punishment apart from interrogation) at least when lives might be at stake. His support for more severe interrogation techniques than waterboarding (and maybe even for waterboarding itself) is contingent on Congress broadening the laws. So my sense is the header should say something like "Waterboarding and more severe interrogation techniques".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• The leading sentence from CFredkin is "Trump has repeatedly promised to reinstate waterboarding for terrorism suspects." The leading sentence from Neutrality is "During his 2016 presidential campaign, 'Trump has repeatedly called for the United States to 'torture' terrorism suspects.'" I have already said that I dislike quotations that are not attributed inline. I can dig up some policy or guideline about it if necessary. Why not paraphrase? Also, Trump has sometimes been equivocal during the 2016 campaign about whether waterboarding is torture ("nobody knows if it's torture"), so I prefer CFredkin's version for that reason too. I like Neutrality's phrase "During his 2016 presidential campaign" because it sets the timeframe for the rest of the discussion about interrogation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Just a general question and general observation: does Trump really support waterboarding only for "suspects", and not for people who have actually been convicted? Seems to me that the latter would be more likely to possess secrets that the U.S. could use.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding Neutrality's second paragraph, I find this sentence somewhat problematic: "According to NPR, waterboarding is 'widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate,'[9] Trump adviser Walid Phares and other advocates and defenders of waterboarding disagree, contending that this and similar techniques are not torture.[1]" First of all, I think there should be a "but" after "[9]". Second and more seriously, [1] does not address whether Walid Phares or anyone else believes waterboarding is torture within the meaning of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. For all I know, Phares agrees that waterboarding is torture as defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate, but is not torture under other definitions that Phares considers to be better definitions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• As to the "softened" v. "revise" issue, Trump stated: "Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them" and then he softened/revised/reversed his position, saying that he would "not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters." Is it possible that the first statement has always remained 100% true in the sense that he has merely committed to not telling them to do illegal stuff? If so, then the word "softened" would be okay as would the word "elaborated" or "said more about the subject", whereas "revised" or "reversed" would only be okay if he initially said something like "they'll do as I tell them whether it's illegal or not."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:: OK, I think we're making some progress here.

For the first-sentence, I would be fine with a paraphrase (rather than a quote). So something along the lines of: During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has said that he supports (or supports resuming) the use of torture by the United States against suspected terrorists.

As for who would be the subjects of torture - Trump has not been clear but has phrased it generally in terms of "terrorists" (those suspected of terrorism). The the Wall Street Journal framed it in this way (using the phrase "terror suspects").

I am fine with adding Trump's statement that "nobody knows if it's torture" directly before his statement characterizing waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture."

As to the Phares bit: we should add the word "but" —good catch. As for Phares, perhaps we should drop him altogether?

As for "softened" v. "revise": the sources directly use the word "reversed" (the Wall Street Journal headline was "Trump Reverses His Stance on Torture: GOP front-runner had faced criticism from military and legal experts after his comments"). We could drop the characterization altogether, thought (saying something simple, like: "Trump subsequently said").

Let me know your thoughts. Neutrality^talk

My sense is the header should say something like "Waterboarding and other interrogation techniques". The WSJ says he may have retreated from more severe techniques ("That appears to be a reversal from Thursday night’s debate in Detroit, when Mr. Trump stood by his earlier promise to do things that were a 'hell of a lot worse'...."). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, how about something along the lines of During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly promised to reinstate waterboarding for terrorists? That seems clearly true, it's conciser than saying "terrorism suspects", it embraces more people than just "terrorism suspects", and it also avoids the issue of whether Trump thinks (as he has said) that waterboarding is a minimal form of torture or instead he thinks (as he has also said) that nobody knows if it's torture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In the sentence "Trump himself 'draws no such distinctions,' classifying waterboarding as 'your minimal form of torture'", I support adding the statement that nobody knows if it's torture. I also don't like mixing quotes from Trump with a quote that is not attributed inline, so please paraphrase "draws no such distinctions".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Phares, I don't see a problem keeping him in; he's notable, there's a Wikipedia article about him, his comment is pertinent, and CFredkin didn't specifically oppose keeping him in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As for softened versus revised versus reversed, I like "Trump subsequently said", especially because the WSJ hedges ("That appears to be a reversal....").Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I can get on board with most of these, but on the first sentence I can't see anything wrong with During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has said that he supports (or supports resuming) the use of torture by the United States against suspected terrorists. It's directly supported by (many) sources and quite important. Obviously, we can mention his back-and-forth on waterboarding later, but that really must be in addition to, not instead of, his statements that he supports torture more broadly (i.e., more extensive than waterboarding).

To be clear, do you object to inclusion of this text in the first sentence or do you object to its inclusion anywhere in the section? Neutrality^talk 19:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

On the first sentence, why not just say "terrorists" instead of "suspected terrorists"? It's both conciser and broader. Also in the first sentence, he has not gone back and forth on waterboarding; what he's gone back and forth on is whether he considers it torture, and whether he would allow stuff more severe than waterboarding, so I support During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly promised to reinstate waterboarding to obtain information from terrorists or something like that. Regarding whether to mention that Trump has supported torture, I definitely support saying so, but would amend your sentence "Trump himself 'draws no such distinctions,' classifying waterboarding as 'your minimal form of torture'", by adding his statement that nobody knows if it's torture, and paraphrasing "draws no such distinctions".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Suspected terrorists" is the phrase used by NPR in its article and by other sources; but if it will help get us to agreement I am not hung up on it. Trump's support is not only to obtain information from terrorists, since he has said that he supports it even if it doesn't work (while also asserting that it does work).

You're right on waterboarding—Trump has been consistent in his support of it but has gone back and forth on its status as torture. I've posted a second revised proposal below that clarifies this. I'm amended the Phares bit upon looking at the article again; Phares' views are not so clear.

Trump has been consistent on his support for torture more broadly as well. The only thing he has been inconsistent on is whether he would order it right away (his initial statement) or whether he would wait for a change in the law, which he would seek. I have tweaked the language to say that he has "frequently expressed support for..." rather than "would order..." to account for this subtle but still somewhat meaningful distinction. See below.

(On the title—I think should nail down, to the extent possible, the body of the section now. The title of the section will probably head to an RfC separately. (I would prefer not to take the section text to an RfC since that is rather messier than the header, but of course we might have to). Neutrality^talk 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Torture and interrogation techniques (2nd revised proposal)

Main articles: Torture and the United States and enhanced interrogation techniques

Over the course of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has frequently expressed support for the use of torture by the U.S. against terrorists, and has called for the resumption of waterboarding.

On one occasion, Trump has called waterboarding as "your minimal form of torture"; on another occasion, he has said: "Nobody knows if it's torture." According to NPR, waterboarding is "widely considered to meet the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified in 1990 by the U.S. Senate," although some advocates and defenders of waterboarding disagree, contending that this and similar techniques are not torture. (Trump adviser Walid Phares, speaking to NPR, "defended Trump's repeated statements on torture as not an actual policy but as "a reaction to a very complex and difficult and challenging situation'"; Phares drew a distinction between "enhanced interrogation techniques" and torture, characterizing waterboarding as part of the former).

On the effectiveness of torture, Trump has said: "Don't tell me it doesn't work — torture works" and "we have to beat the savages." Trump has said: "They're chopping heads of Christians and many other people in the Middle East. ... They laugh at us when they hear that we're not going to approve waterboarding ... It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work." Trump has said that if waterboarding "doesn't work, they deserve it anyway."

Trump's statement that "torture works" runs counter to the 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, which concluded that the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques was "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees." In March 2016, a group of foreign policy experts (including both neoconservatives and prominent realists, such as Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard K. Betts) published a letter in Foreign Policy magazine, entitled "Defending the Honor of the U.S. Military from Donald Trump," against Trump's statements that he would direct the military to torture suspected terrorists and their families and target the families of terrorists and other civilians, stating that "every reputable legal expert we know has deemed [these activities] illegal."

At a Republican primary debate in March 2016, when asked whether the U.S. military would obey orders to torture in violation of international law, Trump stated: "Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them." The following day, Trump said that he would "not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters." Several weeks later, Trump called for a change in the law to legalize torture. Trump referred to those who "came up with this international law" as "eggheads" and said that opposing torture was a "political decision."

References

Since you and CFredkin have cumulatively proposed four texts about this, I feel entitled to one, and so I will propose it later this week. What I plan to do is stick as closely as possible to Neutrality's last one, and indicate all deletions by strikethrough, and all additions by bold, with a clean copy in my user space. It will be (almost) torture to do this, but it's an important and inflammatory issue, and we ought to get it right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I hope to get to it tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. It may be a few days until I can respond after that since I will likely be traveling at the time.

I think what may end up happening is we may agree on 70% or 80% of the text, and disagree on 30% or 20%. The best path is probably to make the changes that we agree upon (consensus having being reached here), and then commit whatever's left to an RfC with clear, distinct questions. Neutrality^talk 12:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Due to limited time, I am just presenting a clean copy here. Any comments or questions are welcome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Waterboarding, torture, and interrogation techniques (Anythingyouwant’s first proposal)

See also: Torture and the United States and enhanced interrogation techniques

In 2016, Trump has frequently expressed support for the use of torture by the U.S. for the purpose of trying to get information from terrorists, and has called for the resumption of waterboarding, if Congress allows it. On one occasion, Trump has called waterboarding "your minimal form of torture"; on another occasion he has said, "Nobody knows if it's torture." Whether waterboarding is torture or not, Trump supports broadening the laws to allow waterboarding. Many experts believe that waterboarding would be illegal without a change in the laws, including a group of foreign policy experts who published a letter in Foreign Policy magazine to that effect in 2016.

On the effectiveness of torture, Trump has said: "Don't tell me it doesn't work — torture works" and "we have to beat the savages". Trump has also said:

I’d go through a process and get it declassified [as a war crime], certainly waterboarding at a minimum. They're chopping off heads of Christians and many other people in the Middle East....They laugh at us when they hear that we're not going to approve waterboarding ... I have no doubt that it does work in terms of information and other things, and maybe not always, but nothing works always.

Moreover, he says, if waterboarding "doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing". Trump's statement that "torture works" runs counter to a 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, in which a majority of the committee's members concluded that the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques was "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees." But, there is strong public support for the proposition that torture can be justified to obtain information about terrorism, and Trump voices that belief. Many people in the CIA favor interrogation that goes beyond the current limitations in the United States Army Field Manuals, and they find it ironic that the U.S. has softened interrogations of terrorists while increasingly killing them and others by drone strikes.

At a Republican primary debate in March 2016, when asked whether the U.S. military would obey orders to torture in violation of international law, Trump stated: "Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them." The following day, Trump said that he would "not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters." Several weeks later, Trump called for a change in the law to legalize "the waterboarding thing". Trump referred to those who "came up with this international law" as "eggheads" and said that the current legal limitations were "probably a political decision" rather than based upon military advice.

References

This seems like a pretty balanced approach to me. My main objection is to mentioning "torture" before "waterboarding" in the first sentence, since the sources mention "waterboarding" more frequently. Also, I think we should substitute "repeatedly" for "frequently" in the first sentence (to be consistent with the source).CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Neutrality is apparently traveling for a few days, so I'll make those two changes and insert into article. Subsequent edits can of course be discussed here at the talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this - it makes a lot of progress. I've done a quick readthrough but I'll read it more completely in a bit, I think I'll have some edits/tweaks/comments to float and will make them as time allows. A few important bits:

--"for the purpose of trying to get information...": It is true that Trump has used this as a rationale ("he'll talk faster with the torture" and "torture works") but Trump has also said that "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway" ([3]). And Trump has spoken of torture as a means of sending a message or matching the techniques of terrorists (i.e., Trump's statement "They Can Chop Off Heads, We Can't Waterboard?"). So given the multiple rationales/purposes at play, I am not comfortable with the limiting language, "for the purpose of trying to get information" when Trump has pointedly not limited his support of torture to interrogation or the ticking time bomb scenario.

-- "If Congress allows it": I think we need to reflect the sources which reflect that Trump says that he would actively seek changes to the law by Congress (not to simply remain neutral on the question or commit it to Congress).

-- On CIA employees opinions: To fully reflect the Dilanian/NBC News source on the views and reactions of CIA officials, I don't think we can say that "Many people in the CIA favor interrogation that goes beyond the current limitations..." without also mentioning (via paraphrase) the countervailing agency opinion put forth in the very sample article: "current and former CIA officials, including some who played key roles in the post-9/11 terrorist detention program, say the fallout from that controversial episode has left the spy agency unwilling ever again to conduct coercive interrogations." (Other sources, such as this ("U.S. Spies Slam Donald Trump’s Torture Push") are to the same effect).

--Finally, the clause "they find it ironic that..." seems to go rather beyond the scope of the article. Particularly if we're not going to quote from the experts' letter in Foreign Policy, it seems excessive to include this.

Neutrality^talk 18:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be okay with saying "mainly" for the purpose of trying to get information, but your evidence is very weak that he has another purpose. He has said that sometimes it won't work, in which case they deserved it anyway, but that doesn't mean the purpose was not to get information; likewise, when he says "They Can Chop Off Heads, We Can't Waterboard?" how do you know he doesn't mean "They Can Chop Off Heads of people they dislike, while We Can't Waterboard even to get information"? Trump has specifically and repeatedly said that he wants to use these techniques to get information, and hasn't (AFAIK) stated any other purpose.

As to whether Trump would actively seek changes in the law, we already say "Trump supports broadening the laws...." and "Trump called for a change in the law...." So we've got it covered repeatedly already.

On CIA employees' opinions (including the ironic stuff), I think it properly balances the Foreign Policy letter plus the Senate Majority Report. Perhaps we could say: "Many people in the CIA favor interrogation that goes beyond the current limitations in the United States Army Field Manuals, and they find it ironic that the U.S. has softened interrogations of terrorists while increasingly killing them and others by drone strikes, though others in the CIA are unwilling to risk more fallout from coercive interrogations."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Either tomorrow or in the next few days I will take a look at the section and see what I can do, and discuss further as necessary. I will say that the if we are to include the CIA employees' opinions, it must reflect the full range of reported opinion. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you didn't object, I inserted the additional material that I proposed regarding other opinions within the CIA. I suppose you will also want to include the other opinions on the Senate Committee that issued the report?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Vox

In the past, Vox (website) has run into reliable sourcing problems at Wikipedia. See, e.g., here. I'm not aware that Vox claims journalistic objectivity or neutrality, and they've faced strong criticism for "partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise" (see here). Currently, this Wikipedia article cites three pieces from Vox:

• "President Donald Trump would likely doom criminal justice reform"

• "6 takeaways from Donald Trump's big energy and climate speech"

• "Trump endorses Putin's intervention in Syria"

I don't object to Wikipedia editors looking at these article to find citations of reliable sources, and then using those reliable sources. But using Vox itself is problematic. Getting past headline language like "Trump would likely doom", you can see the lack of neutrality in the text of their pieces. That lack of neutrality is fine, of course, because opinions and attitudes are perfectly acceptable as such, but they are not reliable for our purposes. Most importantly, there are tons of reliable sources available for us to use, so there's no need to rely on sources that may not be.

The piece titled "President Donald Trump would likely doom criminal justice reform" says he is tough on crime, and obviously deems a tough-on-crime attitude to be a mistake that would "doom" reform. Maybe that opinion is correct, but it's not NPOV.

The piece titled "6 takeaways from Donald Trump's big energy and climate speech" is just shoddy. It says, "This is a guy, after all, who once tweeted, 'The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.' Surely he'd like to elaborate?" It's well-known that he has elaborated, by saying that that tweet was intended as humor.[4] This Vox piece also announces that "Trump called for 'energy independence,' a popular but meaningless concept". Wikipedia has an entire article about United States energy independence, which doesn't remotely suggest that the concept is meaningless. Vox is entitled to its POV, but that's not nearly the same as NPOV.

The piece titled "Trump endorses Putin's intervention in Syria" discusses Trump "weirdly citing his experience meeting the Russian leader" (emphasis added). More seriously, this Vox piece (dated Novemer 10, 2015) says: "Trump is flatly wrong. Putin isn't bombing ISIS." There is lots of information to the contrary, and our Wikipedia article Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War states: "The intervention consisted of air strikes primarily in north-western Syria against militant groups opposed to the Syrian government, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)". Again, Vox is entitled to whatever POV they want, but they're not reporting neutrally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should generally skip Vox and use less-POVy sources. I do believe that the Vox piece on criminal justice reform is appropriate (which is why I added it in when I wrote the criminal justice section) as an opinion piece (based on Trump's stated positions) in amongst other takes by observers who have little faith that he'll undertake criminal justice reform. But I didn't particularly mind it getting removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Justice

This edit restored content that has no bearing at all on Trump's political positions. Consequently it does not belong in this article.CFredkin (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) If this content belongs here, then there's quite a bit of comparable content that can be added to the corresponding article on Clinton.CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• In May 2016, Trump stated that the cities of Oakland and Ferguson are "among the most dangerous in the world," a statement which Politifact ruled false. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf responded, saying "the most dangerous place in America is Donald Trump's mouth."
• On 22 November 2016, Trump said that crime statistics show blacks kill 81 percent of white homicide victims, a statement deemed false by Politifact (earned its "Pants on fire" rating) and Factcheck.org the next day. When asked about the statistics on 24 November 2016, Trump maintained that the statistics come "from sources that are very credible."CFredkin (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The Oakland mayor's response is consistent with the rest of the article. See similar responses by Snowden and Sadiq Khan to Trump comments about them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump on the race/crime stats has bearing on his political positions. As with other rejections of science and official numbers, Trump's recital of incorrect and inflammatory stats, and then reiteration of the credibility of the mentioned stats when questioned about them, is key to putting his position on crime and race in context (I would be fine with creating a subsection called "crime and race"). That Trump chooses unprovoked to bring up these false stats and stand by them judges itself (very thinly veiled dog whistle politics), though you're free to insert different commentary and context on Trump's decision to recite these stats. The fact that Trump has no crime platform and avoids questions and deflects when questioned about these issues makes it even more necessary to mention the few specific comments about these issues that Trump choses to make. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the quotes from Snowden and Sadiq belong here either. I've stipulated them in the past because I think if we mention a quote from Trump attacking someone personally, then it might make sense to include the response as well. However that's not the situation with the quote in question. Trump's statement wasn't personal, but the mayor's response was. It doesn't belong here.

The purpose of this article is not to mirror Politifact or serve as a repository for every debunked statement by Trump. This article is intended to document his political positions. In the absence of an actual statement of Trump's position on an issue, it's not appropriate to insert random statements and imply a political position based on that. (Note: In the first of the bullets I added above, I included an additional sentence that wasn't part of the edit in question. I'd like to include that in this discussion as well.)CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with dropping the Oakland mayor's response but just noting the inconsistency problem (when accusations are leveled at a city, I think it's pretty much the same for the mayor to respond as it would be for individuals to respond to accusations leveled at them). As for calling the two cities among the most dangerous in the world, you don't think that's Trump emphasizing a massive problem in those cities that needs to be solved, similar to saying the state of veterans affairs is horrendous or claiming immigrants cause a lot of crime in the US? Similarly, his point about race and crime is meant to convey a problem that needs to be fixed, and again a rejection of official numbers and reliance on dubious sources for forming his crime policies. If Obama were reciting numbers of rape on campuses, the increase in temperature over period X or the murder rate in black neighborhoods, it would be to convey that these are problems that need to be solved. Trump's stats claim didn't get the attention of every other news outlet for no reason. In my edits, you saw that I didn't imply or add my interpretation of those statements but just left them as a quote from Trump, allowing people to read into them what they want. Also, it's difficult for this article not to become a repository of incorrect statements when the candidate can't go 20 sentences without saying a lie and every other position is based on falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

References

The material in this article that was mentioned at the start of this talk page section is as follows:

“ In May 2016, Trump stated that the cities of Oakland and Ferguson are "among the most dangerous in the world," a statement which Politifact ruled false. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf responded, saying "the most dangerous place in America is Donald Trump's mouth." ”

References

First off, the Schaaf sentence definitely needs to go, because it's just an insult that sheds no light on anything. If anything from this paragraph is retained, then I would support an added cite to where Trump made this statement in the first place.[5] I'd recommend people look at that NYT article to see whether it was discussing a political position, and if so which one. It seems instead to be about Trump's general level of knowledge. The source that we do cite (Politifact) includes a video that I recommend editors watch. In that video, the reporter mentions that Oakland is #2 in crime nationwide, and that 99% of US cities are safer than Oakland, so Trump apparently had some idea which US cities are least safe. The reporter in the video also says there were 32 murders per 100,000 people in Baghdad, compared to 25 murders per 100,000 people in Oakland, so Trump was not completely out of the ballpark. But what's the political position here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In my mind, it's less about the accuracy of the statement as Trump's identification of a major problem (that there are cities in the US that are among the most dangerous in the world). Trump could have emphasized how things are getting better (the problem is being solved) or downplayed the problem (it would, for instance, be important to Obama's position on terrorism to note that he finds terrorism to be an overrated problem that gets too much attention). It's of the same type as his statement included in this article that 300,000 veterans have died without appropriate VA care (meant to convey a major problem). I hope this clarifies why I believe it deserves mentioning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the NYT article, Trump was responding to the question: "What's the most dangerous place in the world you've been to?", which followed a discussion about Iraq. And there's nothing further on that topic in the article. I think it's a stretch to link that to any position by him on criminal justice.CFredkin (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The second bullet is based on a retweet by Trump. I don't think we can infer anything from that (except maybe that he chooses his sources poorly).CFredkin (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's posting of a false graphic (of neo-Nazi origin, as the AP noted) is quite obviously illustrative of his views on crime, race, and so forth. The tweet was extensively covered, and it is also worthy of note that the post was described as not just false, but also "racially charged" by both the Associated Press and CNN. The backdrop of all this, of course, is the national debate over racial disparities in the criminal justice system, police killings with racial overtones, etc. And the significance is not just limited to the tweet itself, but also to the furor afterward (e.g., the exchange with O'Reilly afterward—in which Trump refused to disavow the tweet and asked "Am I gonna check every statistic?"). One would be hard-pressed to say that this does not touch on Trump's views. Neutrality^talk 16:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Is KPIX a reliable source? For a reporter to say that Baghdad and Oakland have comparable murder rates (note that Politifact doesn't cite as high a murder rate for Oakland as this reporter does (feels like he's cherry-picking different years and data sources), though it doesn't the specific numbers for Baghdad) sounds incorrect and as if he's sensationalizing. That he won't say that Baghdad is arguably the least safe city in the world (see Politifact piece), smack in the middle of a civil war, plagued by multiple major terrorist attacks every year and facing many of the normal security problems facing developing states is journalistic malfeasance. It's akin to saying the sexual assault rate is higher in Sweden than Iraq, which is probably accurate in terms of official gov stats in both countries but completely false and misleading (stats counted differently, law enforcement work differently, assaults go uncounted). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Snoogans is referring to this material in the Wikipedia article:

“ CBS News in San Francisco reported that the murder rates in Oakland and Baghdad are comparable.

References

”

This same CBS video is presented by Politifact.[6] Of course it is a reliable source. The key to comparing murder rates in different cities is making sure that the rates are for the same years, because the rates change every year. If two reliable sources provide different comparisons, then it's probably because they are using different years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Politifact doesn't cite the KPIX reporter's statement in their analysis though, just links to reporting on Trump's statement. Seems like the reporter is cherry-picking Oakland's peak year and then making a comparison with Iraq while also failing to put the numbers into context (reliability of the stats + mention that Baghdad is the capital of a country in the middle of a civil war, is plagued by multiple major terrorist attacks every year and facing many of the normal security problems facing developing states). Makes for very questionable reporting and the report gives us little means to check these stats on our own (unlike Politifact). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please look at this table which shows a murder rate in Oakland of 126 per 399,487 people, which is equivalent to 31.54 murders per 100,000. A rate of 25 per 100,000 is clearly not a peak rate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that's the peak year that I and Politifact talked about. The reporter is cherry-picking it for the sensational comparison. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the CBS reporter said "In Oakland it’s 25 per 100,000". That's less than than the 31.54 which was reported by the FBI for 2012.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh you're right, I didn't fully read your last post or missed an edit. Sorry about that. Still the point stands. It's difficult to take the reporter seriously in his reading of the stats (no easy way to check his stats) when he fails to provide needed context (every month this year, 250-300 Baghdad civilians have died in political violence). Furthermore, it bugs me to no end to see reporters (and now this wiki-page) bring up sensational comparisons between "murder rates" and "rape rates" in war zones and developing countries, and peaceful developed countries as if the stats are in any way comparable. Sweden is not the rape capital of the world nor is Oakland as murderous as Baghdad. The wiki page needs to make that absolutely clear. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump didn't mention the murder rate or crime rate in Baghdad:

“ "What’s the most dangerous place in the world you’ve been to?”

He contemplated this for a second. “Brooklyn,” he said, laughing. “No,” he went on, “there are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse. Seriously.”

”

Anyway, it's crystal clear in our footnote what the murder rates are, and if you dispute those rates then we can certainly expand our footnote, if you come up with a reliable source about Trump that debunks the murder rates we provide.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Trump's Supreme Court section

I recently removed the section of NYT criticism of Donald Trump from the Supreme Court section, and it was reverted. I'd like to suggest removing it again or at least clarifying. In particular, I object to this sentence: "In one Republican primary debate, Trump erroneously referred to Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, and then-Judge Samuel Alito "signing a certain bill"; bills are legislative and not judicial documents." This is neither a policy nor criticism of a policy. This is a gaffe, and I believe it does not belong on a page dedicated to specific policies.

I also feel like if criticism is to be included, which is more than fair, it should be directly linked to a specific policy proposal here. So when the NYT says that "some" of Trump's statements betray his ignorance, we should specify which policy proposal(s) they are referring to. If we cannot specify that the source is criticizing any particular policy, then the sentence needs to go. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I would say three things:

First - this is not "NYT criticism" in the sense of an editorial, column, or op-ed. Nor is it a quote from some individual commentator or participant. Rather, it's a straight-news account. I don't consider that a criticism in the sense that quoting Maureen Dowd or something would be a criticism.

Second - My view is that it is no stretch to say that Trump's comments about the judiciary, and his view of their role, falls under the category of a political position. (It seems to me that the line between "gaffe" and "political position"—especially in this unusual election year—is often narrow).

Third - As to the "some" statement, we should strike a balance between general overview-style statements and more specific examples. I of course do not object to including detail or specific examples when called for, but that does not mean that overview statements are impermissible or objectionable. (Sometimes, a broader summary-style statement is preferable to a litany of examples, in view of due-weight concerns, article length concerns, trivia concerns, etc.). Thanks --Neutrality^talk 20:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on summary style; as a somewhat-new editor I hadn't read it yet. In view of that, I think we should keep the NYT criticism, but I still feel uncomfortable with the sentence I reference above. I just don't think it adds anything valuable to the article, and seems (in my opinion) to push a POV that Trump doesn't have a grasp of the way the judicial system works.

"(It seems to me that the line between "gaffe" and "political position"—especially in this unusual election year—is often narrow)." I like this a lot! However, I just don't see Trump advocating for or against any policy by mentioning Judges Barry or Alito. For that reason I'm not sure that particular sentence belongs here. Thanks for the discussion! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I can consent to removing that sentence. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

LGBT Issues- Obergefell

I reverted an edit by a user here that removed the sentence on Obergefell from the LGBT issues section. If we don't want a duplicate sentence, I personally think we should remove the one from the Supreme Court section. Obergefell has been a milestone case for the LGBT rights movement and for this reason it merits inclusion in the section on LGBT rights. If a user wanted to know Trump's position on same-sex marriage, they would look in the LGBT rights section, so I believe that's where they should see the information on Obergefell. I'm ok with removing it from (or having a very short reference in) the Supreme Court section to avoid duplicate info, though. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I just don't think we need to duplicate it.CFredkin (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove it from the Supreme Court section. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nativism

A section on nativism was recently created for this page. I do not believe it belongs here, as it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Additionally, it is not topical, as it contains no policy proposals by Trump. For something to be included in this article, I believe it should be based on a specific policy claim made by Trump. Since his immigration policies have already been covered elsewhere in the article, I believe this is a WP:coatrack.

One example out of many: the following quote is not entirely factual and violates NPOV.

From the day of his entry into the race Trump has emphasized nativist themes hostile especially to Mexicans and Muslims.

It would be accurate to say that Trump has emphasized immigration in a way that might be seen as hostile to Mexicans and Muslims. However, that should be discussed in the section on immigration and not in its own section, divorced from any specific political position by Trump. After all, this page is entitled "Political Positions of Donald Trump" and not "Criticisms of Political Positions of Donald Trump". Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should stick to the facts of his positions and avoid subjective labels.CFredkin (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The section is essentially a couple of hand-picked quotes and it really doesn't say much about policy. The first and last sentences should be incorprated in some form elsewhere in the article, but I think the rest of the section can go.- MrX 19:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the standalone section was problematic mostly for the reasons identified by others above. I've removed the section and partially incorporated some of the text into the "Political philosophy as described by others" section. Neutrality^talk 19:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

David Cameron

Re the inclusion of the David Cameron info here (removed by CFredkin, restored by Rockypedia, removed again by CFredkin, restored just now by me):

I think that this back-and-forth is still relevant (even if only a historical matter), despite the change in prime ministers; although Cameron is no longer in office, the exchange speaks to the broader issue/topic of Trump's positions toward the UK, foreign leaders generally, etc. I think it's worth the two sentences — all the moreso because it is unprecedented for a presidential candidate to have these kinds of interactions with foreign heads of government. Neutrality^talk 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. I understand both views, and it wouldn't bother me either way if it's kept or removed. Though I think the Cameron paragraph should be placed below Trump's Brexit paragraph if it's to be kept (Trump's Brexit position is clearly more salient). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think the content needs to reflect the fact that Cameron is no longer PM. I would also agree that it should be placed below the Brexit para.CFredkin (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with swapping the order of paragraphs, if desired. Neutrality^talk 03:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sentence makes no sense

"Politico noted that Trump's stance on Russia's involvement in the Ukraine softened after his association with several people "sympathetic to Russian influence in Ukraine", including Paul Manafort, the former chairman of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor Carter Page, who has extensive business ties in Russia, and Henry Kissinger."

Inserted by CFredkin. At the very least this is badly written. Softened after his association with several people what? Where's the predicate? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

add to gold standard section?

this might be a stretch... http://fortune.com/2016/08/18/trump-gold-standard-economic-advisor-woman-judy-shelton/ ...but i thought at least worth considering adding one line about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think so. Trump himself has apparently mused in favor of the gold standard, but I don't think we need to mention that one of his advisers supports it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Letters of support and opposition

In the introduction to the "Defense and foreign policy" section, User:CFredkin added a reference to a recent letter from a number of retired military officers supporting Trump. User:Volunteer Marek removed it as WP:UNDUE. Since that material was recently added and has been challenged by reversion, it will require consensus to restore it. I agree it was undue, but IMO so is the rest of that paragraph ("Four letters from international relations scholars..."} which lists four different letter of opposition to Trump. Letters for and against him have nothing to do with his "political positions" which is what this article is about; this material could possibly belong in the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 but not here. I believe that material should also be removed; however, since it has been in the article for a long time, it will require consensus to remove it. So there are two issues here requiring consensus: Whether to restore the recent letter of support, and whether to remove the earlier letters of opposition. Let's treat them separately, or this discussion is going to become hopelessly confused. (Striking my "consensus" comments" since this article has not been tagged for Discretionary Sanctions, although it is certainly eligible.)--MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Why would we treat the letters differently? Setting up the discussion as 2 separate topics will potentially lead to that outcome.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I'm assuming you did that when you thought DS were in effect for the article, so the content would potentially be treated differently as new vs. old edits. However, that is not the case. I believe this should be treated as one issue.CFredkin (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. However, knowing how these discussions go, it is possible people may have different opinions for the two sets of letters - based, for example, on the amount of independent coverage. If someone thinks they should both be included, or both be removed, they can simply say so twice, as I did. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Letter of support from retired officers

• Status: this was recently added to the article by CFredkin, removed by VM, and restored by CFredkin. Be careful not to edit war, people.
• I believe it should be removed, as it is inappropriate for this article about Trump's political positions; maybe put it in the campaign article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, remove it. It's not a political position.- MrX 13:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Letters of opposition from foreign policy people

• Status: this material has been in the article for quite a while and is still there.
• I believe it should be removed, as it is inappropriate for this article about Trump's political positions; maybe put it in the campaign article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. Not a political position of Donald Trump.- MrX 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Quick take: My view is that all the aforementioned letters should be included, as they are by foreign policy experts, academic and/or partisan. I think it tells a lot about whether a candidate's policies are mainstream, whether they are accepted by academics, where the policies fit on the political spectrum. It's, for instance, important to note that Trump's foreign policy vision has met criticism from GOP foreign policy experts. The input from academics mirror the content on where economists stand on Clinton's, Trump's, Johnson's economic policies. It's informed commentary and context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Snooganssnoogans on this point. Include both. Neutrality^talk 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Exclude both. It doesn't really say anything about Trump's political position and reading into the existence of such letters is original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If we do put the generals in, then we need to also add in Gen. Allen and the fact that Trump attacked him as a "failed general".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that they should both be excluded.CFredkin (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

United Nations

Vis à vis the article's United Nations section, a report in todays Guardian headlined 'Demagogues and cheats’: UN rights chief condemns Trump and Wilders might be of possible interest to editors of the article.Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, addressing the Justice and Security Foundation gala in The Hague yesterday, ‘launched a scathing attack on populist politicians including Donald Trump and the Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders, calling for action to halt “demagogues and political fantasists”.’ The Guardian reports that Zeid said Wilders ‘had much in common with the US Republican presidential hopeful Trump, Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban, the French National Front leader Marine Le Pen and the leading Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage’ (Guardian’s words, not Zeid’s) , and that he said ‘populist leaders use “half-truths and oversimplification” to feed the fears of “anxious” individuals.’ [7] Writegeist (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• : I'm inclined not to support the addition of this content to the article. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights strikes me as fairly politicized and I'm not sure it's all that notable that someone in the organization criticizes Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(inserting) The issue of inclusion or otherwise is not contingent on what you think, or what you think you know, about the office. Your POV counts for nothing here. Writegeist (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snoogans. Don't include, unless it becomes a widely publicized and high-profile remark. Various foreign leaders have said various things about him, but for the most part the remarks have not had lots of coverage, and I suspect that will be the case with this one as well. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It may interest editors at the article to know that the commentary has already received mainstream coverage in such as The Guardian, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, The Independent, CBS News, and CNN. Writegeist (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, international media coverage now includes:

• The Guardian
• The Washington Post
• BBC
• Reuters
• The Independent
• CBS News
• Fortune
• Tribune
• Time
• The Telegraph
• Business Insider
• Al Arabiya
• CNBC
• The Daily Express
• The Globe & Mail
• The Australian

—Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevant?

References to this content, which was recently removed, were included in both the secondary sources in the article. It provides context regarding the lead author of the report and seems as relevant as the report itself.CFredkin (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Zandi's political affiliations and potential biases are relevant (if supported by reliable sources, which is the case IIRC), just as we note that this or that think tank is 'conservative', 'liberal', 'free-market' etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Telling anything about Mark Zandi on this page is undue because: (a) we have a separate page about Mark Zandi and link on this page, so any reader can go to his BLP page for more detail, and (b) this article is already huge, hence one should move as much content as possible from this page to other pages, instead of creating duplicate content on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat inclined to drop it (although I don't have major/serious objections). Zandi seems to be a sort of maverick; if he was consistently liberal or conservative, I would favor briefly noting it (as we do, say, for Paul Krugman or Stephen Moore or the Center for American Progress or the Heritage Foundation), but I don't know if there's much value to reciting his whole political history. I firmly disagree with the notion that Zandi's context "seems as relevant as the report itself" — I'm not sure why this would be so. Neutrality^talk 15:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Leave it out. The report is what it is. If Reliable Sources, or Trump himself, have objected to its content that can be mentioned. But reciting the history of the report's lead author seems like an attempt to imply bias without anyone actually coming out and claiming it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia

This edit. Claims like that can only be a matter of opinion, not a fact, however this is a very well sourced opinion in a number of RS [8],[9],[10] (there are many more). So, I think this should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the focus here should be on Trump's political positions, not labels used in the headlines of left-leaning publications.CFredkin (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be right to not include the link to Islamophobia in the United States as long as Trump was not mentioned on the "Islamophobia" page. But I think his positions should be mentioned on the "Islamophobia" page per sources as important views of a leading presidential candidate. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with CFredkin. It was a POV link and did not belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to exclude. What decision was reached on the Trump main article talk page on whether his wiki-page should describe his rhetoric as racist? I think that discussion might help us reach a decision here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't have a 'see also' link without context. But a sentence in text under either "As described by others" or under one of the topical headings might work (For example: "A number of commentators, such as David Ignatius, the Guardian editorial board, and Haroon Moghul have described Trump as Islamophobic. [Cites]"). Neutrality^talk 17:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

undue

This has nothing to do with any "political positions" of Donald Trump. It's just general flattery, fluff and advocacy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This one's weird. CFredkin, why are you putting Reuters in scare quotes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The letter content belongs in the endorsement article and possibly the campaign article. - MrX 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:CFredkin, can you explain why you're going around (you did it with ABC news too) putting names of sources in scare quotes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

One more time, since no response was given. User:CFredkin, why are you going around adding scare quotes to names of sources, like "Reuters" or "ABC News"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is about support of Trump in general, not about support of his specific political positions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why's he's putting the word Reuters and the words ABC News in scare quotes, as if these were meant ironically or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let it go, VM. He probably meant to put in italics (two apostrophes) and did quotes instead. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, he could've just said so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page those involved in editing this article might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Original research

I removed recent edits as wp: original research. The sources provided did not mention Trump.CFredkin (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not the definition of OR. These are simply facts related to the claims Mr. Trump is making. If Trump says unemployment is 25%, and a cited source says it actually is 5%, that is not OR. That source does not have to say Trump is wrong because unemployment is 5%.Farcaster (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the employment section is fine as is, I've made some changes to the income inequality section and added commentary from economist Mark Zandi that mentions Trump specifically.Farcaster (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If the source doesn't mention Trump, then it's your personal judgement that the content is relevant to the topic being discussed here. That's original research.CFredkin (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OR is trying to prevent op-ed and leaps from fact to conclusion without citation (synthesis). If Trump is talking about unemployment, then he has provided the necessary context for a cited unemployment rate from a definitive government source. It's easier to do with the employment section, as I've just quoted the government figures. With income inequality, Trump is talking about lowering income tax rates and Zandi says that makes the tax code less progressive (he mentions Trump by name, so you should be OK with that). However, the link between less progressivity and worse after-tax inequality is provided by the CBO citation. If you want to remove the CBO citation, that is up to you, but it has the necessary context.Farcaster (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Obama's eligibility for the presidency

I do think this subject belongs in the article somewhere. But right now it is way too long and too detailed - WP:UNDUE. Will somebody volunteer to trim it by about half? I don't have time right now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. This is THE issue which launched Trump's political ambitions. The section is also much shorter than several other sections, such as those on gun rights, criminal justice, LGBT issues, abortion, Muslim immigration, a few others I'm too lazy to list, and Native Americans, right above it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the section title and this revert [11]. It's not a "redundancy". There are lots of reasons why a person would be ineligible to be US president. The whole Birtherism thing alleges one particular reason. It's not like Trump went around claiming that Obama was 23 years or old and therefore ineligible or something. No, he went around claiming that Obama was not born in US and therefore was ineligible. I.e. he was espousing, supporting, spreading and trying to give credence to Birtherism. The whole section is about Donald Trump's Birtherism. Hence, the section title needs to reflect that by including the name of the idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How about "Questioning Obama's citizenship"? That gets to the heart of it without putting "conspiracy" or "birther" in the section title. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I put it in. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I disagree. It needs to have "birther" in section title since that is exactly what this section is about. There's a term for this, we use it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't like using "birther", which is a made-up or slang term, in the section heading. How about "Questioning Obama's birth and citizenship"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)