Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government/Archive 7

Help on Reince Priebus

Hi all, I'm looking for some assistance with the article for Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus. Since his article falls under this WikiProject, I hope that members here might be able to help.

In brief, the article is in need of a bit of updating to add in details about his career, particularly his political career prior to becoming chair of the RNC, and to cover details of his tenure as chair. One key example: there's currently no mention of his previous role as chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party in the article.

On the article's Talk page, I've proposed a few updates and corrections. While some have been made in the article, editors who assisted have not returned to look at the suggestions for the Career section. In the interests of being fully transparent, I'm working as a consultant to the RNC and due to that financial conflict of interest I won't make any direct edits to the article. This is why I'm instead proposing updates for editors to review and make the changes as appropriate. Would anyone from this WikiProject be interested in helping? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't currently have the time to help with this, but would suggest cross-posting this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Philosopher, I'll try there. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinging to note that although the details about Priebus's previous political roles have now been added, there are some remaining edits I'm asking about for the Career section of the article. I have also just added some new suggestions for the RNC chairman section. If you're able to take a look, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

adding every possible poll to a political BLP?

As we enter 2016 <g> it appears some editors are adding every poll they can find to every BLP of a person mentioned in any poll, even where no one is a declared candidate for an office. At Marco Rubio I demurred on adding multiple polls this early into the 2016 campaign season, and actually asked at WP:BLP/N where a number of others agreed that Wikipedia is not a newspaper listing every poll as we go on.

Unfortunately, one editor said that the BLP/N noticeboard is of no value as to what can go into a BLP :), so I thought asking here might get more eyes on the issue as being focused on political biographies. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Marco_Rubio_et_al Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the articles Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo , of interest to this wikiproject, were selected a while ago to be reviewed by external experts. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the articles before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated experts for review (for details, please see each articles' talk page). Any notes and remarks written by the external experts will be made available on the articles' talk pages under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

Project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley GAR

Martin O'Malley, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits from parliament

The Telegraph found that several articles here about politicians running for election were edited by folks within the offices of parliament. Full details at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11574217/Expenses-and-sex-scandal-deleted-from-MPs-Wikipedia-pages-by-computers-inside-Parliament.html 1bandsaw (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Help reviewing FAC

I ask you all for help with Juan Manuel de Rosas. The article is in need of reviews for its FAC. The page is here. The problem is that Rosas as well as Argentine history (with the exception of the Falklands War) as gathered little interest in here so far. If you can, take your time to review the article, please. --Lecen (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

N. Patrick Crooks

Did some expansion of this article -- could someone consider checking it to see if it's at B-class or C-class level? Thanks much. 74.127.175.164 (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris Osborne

I'm not sure Chris Osborne passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Moreover I suspect COI issues since the article was enterely written by Jarama52 and the same user claimed File:Chris Osborne Federal Election Poster 1977.jpg as "own work". I'm not used to blp patrol on en.wiki, so what do you think about it? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC, Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians?, has been posted at the talk page for Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 17:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography here. This would first help split out the 280 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (politics and government) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes vs succession boxes

See article Barbara Snelling. The info box officeholder nearly duplicates the info in the succession boxes. The bio is short and the article looks a bit silly as a result. IMO, the duplicate material in the info box should be rm. Student7 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input about the inclusion of a high school in a political biography article

An editor and I are having a disagreement on the article Ted Deutch about whether the article subject's high school should be included. I've added a half-sentence reference to the "Early life and education" section, as well as a category identifying him as Liberty High School alumni, but the editor has repeatedly reverted it ([1] [2] [3] [4]). In the talk page, he says that it's "silly trivia of no importance" and "not important enough to include in his article", with which I obviously disagree. I'd like to gather more input to determine a WP:CONSENSUS as to whether this information should be included, so any feedback at Talk:Ted Deutch#Inclusion of high school would be appreciated. Please keep the conversation there, not here on this talk page, so it's all in one place. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could anyone have a look at Draft:Protohistoric Aquitania? It's currently eligible for deletion given it hasn't been edited in a while. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Hello! I've been working to make Ruth Bader Ginsburg a "good article." There is still plenty of work to be done to reach that goal. I would like to invite anyone who is interested to come collaborate or make any improvements you can. As Ginsburg is one of only four female United States Supreme Court justices ever, I think her article is worth improving. Knope7 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob^Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on a RfC at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on infobox image

Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party AusLondonder (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Mian Mumtaz Ahmad Watoo

Unsourced, orphan substub. To be removed?Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed the article for deletion. I was going to request speedy deletion, but saw that a speedy on the grounds of no assertion of notability has previously been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark Roosevelt has serious problems

Mark_Roosevelt was rewritten into it's current form by a PR flack at the college he works at back in 2013 and needs some serious work to not read like an advertisement. I am unsure of where to start, but since the article's under y'all's auspices, I thought I should at least take a poke in here. Jtrainor (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've pruned some of the puffery and editorializing, but there's plenty left. Truth to tell, the whole article needs to be torn down and rewritten: among other things, reverse chronological order is not a good organizing scheme for an encyclopedia article. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So it should probably be AFDed, then? Jtrainor (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably not a legitimate use of AfD. Roosevelt probably satisfies notability standards, so the article would probaby survive deletion discussion. WP:ATD says that deletion is possible in extreme cases of NPOV failure, but in most of the deletion discussions in which I've participated, article quality has not been taken as a valid reason for deletion.

I haven't looked at the history in detail; from what you've said, the puffery came from a 2013 rewrite. You could revert to an earlier version, if there's one that's reasonably neutral. Otherwise, I'd suggest cutting it down to stub- or start-length, mining the cited sources for the most essential details, arranging them in birth-to-death chronological order, and getting rid of everything else. This is consistent with WP:ATD, which notes that articles that severely fail NPOV can be reduced to stubs. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems people potentially associated with the college Mark Roosevelt works at have noticed the attention on their page. Might wanna keep an eye on it. Jtrainor (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Murder of Jo Cox

There is sufficient independent notability for the first fatal attack on a British MP for a quarter of a century for a separate article. Coverage relating to the suspect and the motivation are not best covered in the biography of the victim. Please assist at Draft:Murder of Jo Cox AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 5 August 2016

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Samuel Clark (U.S. politician)#Requested move 27 July 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding Hillary Clinton

See Talk:Hillary Clinton#Conspiracy theorist category and Conspiracy theory. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bold merge/redirect as backdoor deletion

I'm seeing more and more editing activity such as this come across my watchlist, particularly in our coverage of political biography. First of all, the edit summary reads in part: "& there's no reason why information on this point can't be at main article". Um, lessee. The main article is approximately 130K in size. The subarticle prior to backdoor deletion was approximately 21K, with an approximately 3K summary in the main article. On the surface, that represents a perfectly logical coverage structure, found in a great many corners of the encyclopedia.

This edit and many other similar edits suggests that our purpose here is to be yet another current events and/or news site and that it's perfectly reasonable to tear down our coverage of certain topics because they aren't currently grabbing headlines. This is alluded to in the other part of the edit summary's rationale: "Citations on this page are almost all to the subject's own long-defunct campaign website". So? Evidence of building content with low hanging fruit is also all over the place. I especially love how major portions of content built upon public domain works of the U.S. government blatantly reflect decades-out-of-date source material, with the editors responsible carrying on like the protagonist of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and acting as if it's perfectly normal to mislead readers like that. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that someone is truly concerned about the verifiability of something from 2008? Really? Really? Obviously, we're talking about a subject who has been in the political spotlight on and off over the past half century or so, so that rationale amounts to the sort of grasping at straws which typically accompanies mindless deletionism and doesn't exactly pass any sort of smell test. As the main article in this case has long been a GA and long been stable, I would think there to be better remedies to address any problems than this.

Edits such as these also reflect the notion that even the most active editors view Wikipedia as a popularity contest. So it's perfectly normal to categorically eradicate this content, accompanied by a "not my problem" attitude towards whether or not proper weight is reflected in the end, all the while a comparable article such as Political positions of Hillary Clinton currently stands as one of the worst examples of a bloated navel-gazing exercise I've ever read on here? I'm not being provided with appropriate enough incentive to actually build an encyclopedia when I see activity such as this, suggesting that our only real agenda is to parrot the agendas of big corporate media and other cherry-picked sources.

As is normally the case, I'm only saying something after seeing patterns of editing activity stretching over a number of years. When I read discussion pages populated by admins/active editors and see grand proclamations about the importance of discussion and consensus in deletion actions, obviously it's nothing more than paper tigers spewing empty words when contrasted with a long line of backdoor deletions like this one. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I agree with @RadioKAOS: that your unilateral removal-through-redirection of Political positions of Mike Gravel is unwarranted. Gravel is one of the more interesting and hard-to-categorize American political figures of the last 50 years and in particular his positions are often idiosyncratic and merit some explication. Your rationale that "Citations on this page are almost all to the subject's own long-defunct campaign website" is unconvincing, since the website is found on archive pages such as this one and the "Political positions of ..." articles are one place where documenting to a subject's site is appropriate. Your other rationale that "there's no reason why information on this point can't be at main article" is also unconvincing; like all other "Political positions of ..." articles, of which there are at least a hundred, the split-out is so that the details of the positions don't overwhelm the main biographical article. I would suggest that you undo your redirect action or, if you really think the political positions article is without value, put it up at AfD so that others can weigh in as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I do have to say, some of the language in the original post here seems a little overwrought ("mindless deletionism," "parrot the agendas of big corporate media," etc. - not really a super-helpful starting point). I think there are some very real, significant concerns against the proliferation of "political positions of..." pages that prompted my admittedly bold move:

--First, the pages tends to atomize content, often unnecessarily so. Where a person is a politician, their notability is intrinsically connected to their tenure in office, voting record, etc. I think it is important that content be channeled to the main biographical article, especially true where the article isn't excessively long. This is done fairly well at Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, where their respective positions/records/etc. are integrated in their context of their full career. Imagine if we had acting career of Katharine Hepburn separate from Katharine Hepburn; it would not be as useful to readers as a single, well-integrated article.

--Second, "political positions of ..." often have the tendency to attract cruft; we're not a voters' guide or the Congressional Quarterly, and I think it's important to recognize that as well.

--Third, the pages tend to be highly recentistic in nature; it is fully true that Gravel is an interesting and hard-to-categorize political figure, but we don't have, for instance, Political positions of Robert Bryd, Political positions of Robert M. La Follette Sr., or Political positions of Robert A. Taft. Although they were three of the most important senators, their tenures and views are discussed in their main articles.

On the Gravel article in particular, much is made of the 21K size of the subarticle prior to redirect, but this includes a substantial amount of unsourced material, plus a boatload of improper external links (such as nine links to various FairTax webpages, which would have to be removed in any case. And while a self-published source such as a campaign website may be used to support statements about a person's positions, excessive citation to such sources (as was certainly the case in this subarticle) presents its own problems; if a position is noteworthy, in many cases it will be covered by some sort of third party (whether that's a book or a news articles or something else). I do think that when 11 out of the 15 footnotes in an article are to one's own campaign website, that should raise alarm bells.

This is some food for thought. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have just now updated and expanded the political positions sections on Gravel's bio, including a broader range of issues and adding a substantial number of post-2008 sources. The new version is very significantly better than the material on the former subpage; it relies only partially on Gravel's own website, and brings in multiple other sources (interviews, Q&As, and profiles from across the years). Total size of the newly added content is 9.7K, which is abut 7% of the total length of the article — which seems bang-on the money for a politician's bio.

I hope this will assuage any concerns about giving full coverage to Gravel's stances. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I agree with many of the points you make about "Political positions of ..." articles in general, but my point was that the Gravel one wasn't much worse than many of the others and that complete deletion by redirection was inappropriate. Now you've done a merge-and-rewrite with new sourcing, which is not objectionable. However I have some concerns about the specifics of some of what you have added. Some is partly or fully duplicative of the existing biographical narrative (e.g. direct democracy/national initiative, Iraq War, Iran conference on Hollywoodism) and I believe the narrative is a better place for the material. Some I believe is misleading – I don't think he can be placed on a one-dimensional ideological axis, therefore saying he was an "ideological moderate" in the Senate is the wrong way to go – but I do like the inclusion of ADA (and ACU could be added) scores as one metric. And I don't like that Daily Beast source that you used to imply he's a full-on 9/11 conspiracy theorist, especially since the video it points to is marked private. From what I've seen he's held back from going that far, and I think what I wrote on the subject (see first paragraph under "Later activities") is fairer and more cautious on BLP grounds. Anyway, I'll look to address these matters when I have a chance. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's very fair points on the Gravel article. I do agree that there are some duplicative parts that need fixin'. Neutrality^talk 13:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add a general comment about the tense of the article. I'll start by noting that I had never heard of Gravel before seeing this thread. After skimming through the "political positions" article a casual reader is bound to be left with the impression that these are his current positions on each matter, especially due to the constant use of the simple present tense "Senator Gravel supports... ". Looking at the sources though, it is a snapshot of the positions he promoted while trying to win a presidential nomination. I'm sure those positions changed over the course of his long career, and are probably still evolving. Based on the way it was written before the redirect, the appropriate title for this article would be Political positions of Mike Gravel during the 2008 presidential election. From a biographical point of view, if his position on a particular topic is not covered in a third-party source, then it is probably not notable enough for inclusion in his biography. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:22, 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 that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What to include in John Sackar

An editor wishes to make a major rewrite to the John Sackar article and has started a discussion about whether or not to make the change. Sackar is a judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. You can find the discussion at Talk:John Sackar#Change the article? — Gestrid (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello all. Nice job you're doing here. Please I need some clarifications that will go a long way in determining the tone of an article.

During the 2015 general elections in Nigeria, Aisha Alhassan contested for the governorship election, which she lost. On going to the election tribunal, she was declared governor since it was declared that the PDP candidate who won the election shouldn't have contested. The PDP people then went to the Appeal Court who upheld the election. Same thing happened with the Supreme Court. My question is that does she count as a former govewrnor of Taraba State? Can it be stated that she was the first democratically elected female governor in Nigeria? The period between the tribunal decision and the Appeal court reversion was just a few days or even hours. Darreg (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding Official Portrait

Can someone please explain how to add an official portrait to Jennifer Velez, a former cabinet member in the state of New Jersey, but I'm not sure how to ensure the proper licencing. I can find potential images here, here, and here. Can someone please provide guidance? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki Commons Upload Wizard gives a step by step guide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If that fails to obtain an image for you, try requesting an image using the following formats I've tailored for bios of delegates to Virginia Constitutional Conventions without images for their Talk pages, a general request in the category, "people of Virginia":

{{Image requested|people of Virginia}}

I hope that helps one way or the other. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Request to assess importance of Bill English article since he became PM of NZ

The current New Zealand Prime Minister's article appears in this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_biography_(politics_and_government)_articles. What is the process for getting this article's importance assessed? As the head of a country's government, it should be assessed as important. EvidenceFairy (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cut and paste U.S. Representative bios

Thanks to all for reviewing some of my new bios directly created on Virginia Constitutional Convention delegates. I have returned to the articles to update them by removing the “Unreviewed” tag when a reviewer removes them from the log, but not the tag.

I am confining my first pass of creating bios from "Chart of delegates" of red linked and undisambiguated names to those who served in the Virginia Assembly (Delegates or Senators) or U.S. Congress — and excluding those who are not mentioned in Pulliam or Brenaman, or who did not serve in any other public office than one convention. The only Chart of Delegates that I have completed a run through is the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830. Seven daughter articles of Virginia Conventions to go.

Note that there are many U.S. Representative bios that have one source, such as William P. Taylor before I added the Pulliam reference. Many of these use a subdivision named “External Links” instead of “Bibliography”, which I am correcting as I contribute a second source.

Further, the text is copy-pasted from one source, the “Biographical Dictionary of the United States Congress, without making an inline footnote, so the “Harv warning”: There is no link pointing to this citation” appears.

— What is the coding format for correcting the Harv warning in an inline citation? I will be happy to add that contribution in my visits to the U.S. Representative bios who were delegates to Virginia Constitutional Conventions as I go. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Donald Trump regarding lede sentence describing his presidency

Please comment on this RfC here, which seeks input on the lede sentence regarding Donald Trump's presidency. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)