Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11

Donald Trump Religion
Based on this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-religion-of-trump/article/2000601 and many other empirical evidence and sources, it seems that his religion should be removed from the infobox. Trump is not a religious person, he hasn't been to church in ages, so the religion should not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose He claims to be Presbyterian and I know of no other criterion such as attendance record etc. http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/report-trump-prays-with-religious-leaders Talk to SageGreenRider 17:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to be a religious Presbytarian. As such the infobox stating Religion:Presbytarian is misleading. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's going to take a lot more than a "holier than thou" attack piece to overturn his stated position on his religion. Religion is deeply personal and subjective. It not objective like buying a gym membership where you pay the price and get a keycard. Talk to SageGreenRider 21:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. There have been RFC'es on this subject and some people think otherwise. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave it in He goes to church but not every week. He often goes to other churches like Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Florida because he travels a lot. It's as SageGreenRider said his personal life. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have references from reliable sources for this claim, ShadowDragon? In particular, I would be interested in seeing references for time before his presidential bid. I can certainly believe he may have stepped up public church attendance in order to seem religious to his base and the dedicated christian voting block, but I'm curious about his activities prior to having to put on a more public face in regards to this. Centerone (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , given BLP, the burden of proof is for you to prove otherwise. And given the subjectivity I mention above, I think that's impossible. Talk to SageGreenRider 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, sad person that I am, I was rereading Template:Infobox person and it says that the religion parameter should be a major one like Christianity and the denomination parameter should be set to Presbyterian or whatever. And that there should be a cite in the body. Not a fan of the guy but he should get a fair whack here... Talk to SageGreenRider 00:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. ShadowDragon343 made a very clear statement of a simple bit of information. I was simply asking for a reference, a clarification.  The 'burden of proof' isn't on me in this case, I'm simply asking how he knows and if there are any good references for this information. Centerone (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I incorrectly inferred that you were going down the "remove" route. (The now irrelevant point I was trying to make was that no number of cites about attendance rate over time could prove a 'flag of convenience'.)Talk to SageGreenRider 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are the criteria that determine whether an individual's religion should be listed in the infobox, as opposed to the body of the article:


 * From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".


 * From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."


 * From WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" ... "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" ... "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". Note that the infobox and the lead are generally considered to be examples of prominent placement.


 * I have no preconceived opinion on this issue. I just want to see citations to reliable sources that satisfy the above criteria.


 * I would also note that Sir Joseph's behavior while discussing religion in the infobox of another US presidential candidate at Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13 led to a six-month topic ban. See Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016 and the discussion linked from that entry. I am purposely not going to comment further other than noting that the topic ban exists because it would not be fair (Sir Joseph could be accused of violating his topic ban if he replies), and I advise others to also stay silent on the subject of the topic ban. The reason I am bringing this up here is to request that everyone dial down the usual amount of aggression associated with political article talk pages to avoid similar problems in this discussion. That being said, The criteria implied at the start of this section (how religious someone is) is not considered to be a criteria for or against placement of religion in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good. The cite mentioned above http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/report-trump-prays-with-religious-leaders satisfies "publically self-identified." And religious affiliation is clearly relevant in American politics. For example the Weekly Standard cite that began this section says '...as Gary Scott Smith of Grove City College writes in his new book, Religion in the Oval Office, "Throughout American history many citizens have viewed strong faith as an asset, if not a requirement, for politicians, especially presidents."' And since religion is personal, it seems obvious to me that the weight goes to the self-identification but I don't have a cite or policy to back this up. Per  Template:Infobox person, I propose religion be set to Christian and denomination set to Presbyterian.Talk to SageGreenRider 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Praying together for political points is not "publically self-identified." He does not go to church, does not follow his religious teachings and religion is not a part of his life. While he may be a member of that religion, he is not a religious person and it should not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, that is not one of the criteria for inclusion in infoboxes. Please stop saying that it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SageGreenRider, the citation you reference does not contain any example of Donald Trump publicly self-identifying as a Presbyterian through direct speech. Please read the criteria more carefully and find references that meet each of them. Free clue: what happens when you type [ "Donald Trump" "I am a Presbyterian" ] in the Google search box? You also need a citation instead of simply claiming that "religious affiliation is clearly relevant in American politics". Keep in mind that the criteria for inclusion says that in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I linked the anchor text above. See also for example http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/25/donald-trump-ben-carson-republican-debate Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which part of "publicly self-identified through direct speech" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The link I provided goes to a Guardian article reporting on the then upcoming GOP debate on CNN on October 25, 2015. The article reports Trump as saying during a pre-debate interview, "I am a Presbyterian." Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I somehow missed that when I read it. I agree that the self identification criteria has been met. Sorry about that. So, do we have sources that say that his being a Presbyterian is relevant to his public life or notability, according to reliable published sources? The answer is clearly no for notability (he isn't notable for being a Presbyterian) but I can see both sides to the "relevant to his public life" question. I think that the core question is whether claiming that religion is relevant to the public life of every candidate means that we should always include it in the infobox as opposed to the body of the article. Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion of Trump's religion and Evangelical support within the media, as sources mentioned here have shown, definitely demonstrate the importance and relevance of religion in the public life of this presidential candidate, and similar sources can be found for others. Therefore I would argue we include it. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a compelling argument. I would assume that he would get a lot less Evangelical support if he wasn't a member of a Christian church. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, . As to the relevance, the book I cited above Religion in the Oval Office says "Throughout American history many citizens have viewed strong faith as an asset, if not a requirement, for politicians, especially presidents." So clearly Trump's religion is relevant. And yes, the WP:BLPCAT principles apply to the infobox: These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements.Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards keep based on the argument that Trump has significant support from evangelicals. I am having trouble with the keep argument that says that we have to keep religion in the infobox for all US candidates because religion is always "relevant to their public life or notability". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The only issue here is this particular case. I'm not proposing a global ruling. I agree that other articles should be discussed on their talk pages as needed and on a case-by-case basis. I would point out that religion comes up particularly strongly in Presidential/Vice-Presidential races (JFK's catholicism, Joe Lieberman's observance of the Jewish sabbath, Mitt Romney's Mormonism, many others...) It's less important in lower offices. Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 12:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ugh. I also took part in the discussion about religion on the Bernie Sanders talk page, and it was a headache to say the least. (I see now that the "Religion" field has since been removed from his infobox.) Presbyterianism is Trump's self-proclaimed religion. Leave it in. I will say no more on the subject. Good luck to the rest of you.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FWIW I think the Sanders case is much more nuanced than this one simply because Sanders' own statements are more nuanced: He seems to claim a Jewish heritage with pantheistic/humanist overtones IMHO. Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 21:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders failed the "self-identified through direct speech" criteria, and the evidence for meeting the "relevant to their public life or notability" criteria was very, very weak. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I listed the criteria for inclusion above, and in the responses every criteria was supported by multiple high-quality sources. Meanwhile, the OP listed a made-up criteria foe inclusion which is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per . SamWilson989 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose here and in Bernie Sanders. If somebody says they are of a certain religion, it's not for us to judge whether or not he is an "authentic" believer, even if there were objective standards for such things.  I find this notion offensive.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I clearly listed the criteria that determine whether an individual's religion should be listed in the infobox. Why are you bringing up another, made-up criteria which exists in no Wikipedia policy or guideline? Nobody asserted that anyone should judge whether or not anyone is an "authentic" believer. That is a straw man argument. Please don't pretend that someone made that easily-refuted argument when nobody actually made it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The OP (user Sir Joseph) made that part of his arguments above, at least a couple times. IHTS (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Trump self-identifies as a Presbyterian, and his religion is relevant for inclusion because of the support that it has given him from many Christians. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm a Christian and I strongly oppose Donald Trump, because I think he's immoral and unfit for his position. However, Wikipedia's religion infobox field IMO should include what they claim to be, whether or not they actually are that, because we cannot make a judgement on it. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This kind of proves my point. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point, of course, being that you refuse, to accept the fact that on the Bernie Sanders page religion was removed from the infobox because he did not meet the criteria I listed above, and you refuse to accept the fact that on the Donald Trump page religion was kept in the infobox because he did meet the criteria I listed above. Instead you remain convinced against all evidence that the Wikipedia community made those two decisions solely because Sanders is Jewish. And you managed to "prove your point" without violating your topic ban! It's actually an interesting theory, but a quick look at List of Jewish members of the United States Congress(starting at the bottom) clearly shows that when Jewish politicians meet our criteria for inclusion, religion is included in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose "I am a Presbyterian" meets BLPCAT requirements for self-identification. The infobox is a summary of information in the article - not a section for analysis, interpretation, and BLP violating conjecture. -- Callinus (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If he identifies himself as a "Presbyterian" then we should trust him and add/leave it, As noted above we shouldn't really be judging and questioning him ..... – Davey 2010 Talk 13:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A no-brainer, explicit self-identification is the only criterion, which is satisfied. It's for others to question the authenticity/depth/sincerity of his religious identification. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for snow close
Call for snow close by any uninvolved editor per WP:SNOW. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed as not changed: Overwhelming consensus to identify him as a Presbyterian p  b  p  00:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Short-Fingered Vulgarian
There are plenty of sources, but very little of substance that could not easily be covered in 2-3 sentences in the main bio. Alternatively, it could just be deleted under WP:NOTSCANDAL. - MrX 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete It is important enough to mention in this article, but the standalone article is a smorgasbord of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Not sure if I think it's a valid redirect for any reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is the merge tag being removed? The Short-Fingered Vulgarian article was specifically created about Trump. A merger has been proposed. Per WP:MERGEPROP a tag should be placed on the target article. Why is this being removed contrary to policy and precedent? Perhaps can explain the double standards? AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not going to have an article about a public figure with an extraordinarily prominent tag at the top tying him to the insult "Short Fingered Vulgarian". I'm only removing the tag, I'm not making any comment about the merge itself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No credible reason exists for uniquely removing the tag contrary to both the spirit and letter of policy. You are making editors less aware of the proposal. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is the credible reason, duh. IHTS (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is the BLP issue that clearly overrides procedural issues however, this is what the WikiProject has concluded from the various consensus discussions and merge articles we have;
 * For this proposal a tag was placed to list the articles for merge. Someone else removed the tag intending to de-list it. It is acceptable for any editor to object to the merge for any reason but as long as they have addressed the issues involved the tag can be removed. The justification for removal was;
 * It was really all within the procedure. The actual merge discussion should be closed as there is a current AFD for the article that was suggested to be merged. It is there that any merge suggestions should be made and is the consensus discussion that will determine the outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was really all within the procedure. The actual merge discussion should be closed as there is a current AFD for the article that was suggested to be merged. It is there that any merge suggestions should be made and is the consensus discussion that will determine the outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was really all within the procedure. The actual merge discussion should be closed as there is a current AFD for the article that was suggested to be merged. It is there that any merge suggestions should be made and is the consensus discussion that will determine the outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge: Could be mentioned here, but not worthy of its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not merge here maybe merge into the spy magazine if notable enough. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC). Nevermind, already there. --Malerooster (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not merge. The material is suitable for the Urban Dictionary (the dictionary not the article), not a BLP. IHTS (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not merge Garbage name calling. Subject is victim of crude verbal attack. WP:AVOIDVICTIM Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe let's keep discussion at Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian, since any merge discussion here will be moot if the page is deleted. clpo13(talk) 23:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So if the page is not deleted where does the merge discussion, currently underway, belong? IHTS (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete it -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' Lets not do this just to appease Rubio.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per AfD. Frivolous page. Also BLP restraint. — JFG talk 22:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Discussion about a potential merge is also occurring at Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America1000 17:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No merge Wikipedia is not a political battleground. It's a shame some folks use it that way.--v/r - TP 02:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian
Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian: "Short-fingered Vulgarian is a phrase that originated in Spy Magazine in the 1980s as a description of Donald Trump. "

QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, as proposer. It is very well sourced. We don't need to add more than one source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not merge As above, Trump is a victim of crude verbal attack. WP:AVOIDVICTIM Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 16:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - well sourced, some historicity to it, and a notable term for Trump. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is 30 years old satire unearthed for political attack. BLP trumps it :) — JFG talk 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The sentence doesn't fit into the over context of the biography. It strikes me as little more than a trivial epithet, unworthy of space in a respected encyclopedia.- MrX 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Discussion about a potential merge is also occurring at Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America1000 17:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as trivia. If we merged in every bit of name calling to every candidate, that's all we would have.  NPOV and Encyclopedic are necessary for inclusion and this is neither.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not justifiable for a BLP. IHTS (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not appropriate for a BLP. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No merge Wikipedia is not a political battleground. It's a shame some folks use it that way.--v/r - TP 02:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Middle initial in header to infobox
Article name follows wp:Common name however the infobox header follows journalists' guidelines to follow when possible a subject's own generally preffered form of full-name address such as in their signature. See Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S." subsection
The subsection in the article's 2016 election section seems unnecessary, as this is not the only major point Donald Trump has made during his candidacy. I propose this content is merged into the section entitled "Presidential campaign, 2016", as a separate paragraph, as none of Donald Trump's other statements during the campaign have been highlighted in the article as this one has. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. It doesn't need its own section.- MrX 22:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Third. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a political position, doesn't need it's own section outside the page on his political positions, paragraph is okay.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed per above. MB298 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the one of the most (if not the most) notable point in his campaign or agenda, so it does merit a separate section. In many places outside the US, Trump is known solely for his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the US. --Engineering Guy (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Image
I'm notifying you because you were involved in the most recent discussion of this sort. Personally, I believe the current image is fine (but not great) however the issue was brought to my attention by Stemoc, who recently changed the current image to a retouched version of the same one. So, a discussion ought to be held. MB298 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to add more as you see fit.


 * Image #1. There's nothing especially wrong with it, and the others don't look like a big improvement to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Honestly, this is a fruitless discussion, and any picture, save for the edited ones, would be okay. Picking out a picture that looked "flattering" for Trump would indicate a bias, as would picking out a picture that looked "unflattering". The current picture, Image #1, suits him well, and does not portray him in an overly positive or negative light.


 * Support Image #9 Note that many above posters justify their choice because the image is "flattering," "fierce," "happen to like," less "pompous and smug," etc. I support image #9 because it suitably reflects the candidate for lay-readers, and would sit well both in the minds of his supporters and his detractors. It is neither flattering nor unflattering. While we have a responsibility to portray this figure in a respectable way, I don't think we are in a position to decide what a "flattering" picture would look like in this case. And yes, this is a fruitless discussion. Would somebody in their right minds please close it? Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support #1 This image is easily the most flattering, and most representative image we have thus far. Neutral expression, good coloring, good view of his face, hair, etc.  Spartan7W   &sect;   15:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Image 1 is certainly the clearest and best lit of the images, and is thus appropriate. This is also a rather odd RfC; why is there even a dispute over this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Image #1. Agree this RfC is odd, but is more than that too: it's been preemptively (and questionably) defined & controlled by user MB298, apparently according to her/his own whim, running over recent RfC & discussions as though roadkill. IHTS (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This subject has been raised time and again since last August (if not before). How many times does it need to be discussed?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Oh yeah guys elect him and then use official photo of POTUS from the White House. The current picture is okay but the best is Image #5. We have been discussing this since he entered the race, look into archives it always ended up same. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Image #1. Time to put this to bed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If, and when, Donald J. Trump is in the White House, I vote for Image#12 but not until then; wait till November and Thanksgiving. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Get rid of the 10,000 character essay on Trump's Muslim plan
Under the section Presidential campaign, 2016, there's a 10,000 character essay (In response to recent...on the matter) that goes into detail about his Muslim ban, including international reactions, online polls, and a bunch of celebrities' reactions. Can we please just get rid of this part. It shouldn't be in his main life page at all, and if people really want to know more about it, they should go to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was removed previously, i'm not sure why it is back. Sheepythemouse (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to Oppose - Trump's views on Muslims are what many people know him for - it is also what makes him a controversial figure. Taking this out would go against WP's neutrality policy - it therefore needs to stay. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This page is more about his personal life, there is a separate page on his political positions for that. Oppose getting rid of a couple sentence summary of it as it is notable.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's 537 words about a subject that he has become notorious for. I'm not opposed to trimming it though. For example the name dropping and the comment from the Pentagon in the 6th paragraph; most of the 7th paragraph; and the parenthetical in the 8th paragraph.- MrX 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Ches.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - People coming to the Trump article now are not coming to read his life story. They are coming to see what his views are in relation to his run for the Presidency of the United States. If they don't find them here I doubt they'll be digging up the 2016 campaign article. The section is thoughtfully written without violating NPOV or BLP rules and is very well sourced. The article is about a very important policy proposal of his and credible source criticism of it. There is precedent for including policy on pages of people running for office. Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You say "I doubt they'll be digging up" the 2016 campaign article as though that represents a lot of work, when in fact that article is a click away (wlink'd in the lead). And the first time I went to the Barack Obama article it was to find anything re his birth certificate controversy. (There was nothing at all, not even a "See also". So that indeed involved some doing to find elsewhere.) IHTS (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Although, it could be more concise. His problem with people unlike him (Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, immigrants, women, the disabled) go back to his consent decrees over keeping Blacks out of his buildings. Appears to be a significant part of his life that started well before his campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Some organization, please? Trump's 2016 run is a blink is his life-story, since only June. Specific campaign platform issues belong elsewhere. IHTS (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It seems some editors are determined to turn this article into some sort of glowing, promotional puff piece. The Muslim ban proposal attracted strong international attention and criticism. It clearly belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs)
 * The overstated ad-hominem isn't terribly helpful. I don't see any comments here aimed at trying to turn the article into a "glowing, promotional puff piece". The second half of your comment is more relevant. ~Awilley (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support this article is about Trump and should have a little bit about his campaign. The main article to discuss this though, should be the Presidential Campaign article. No other candidate, that I'm aware of, has such a large campaign sub-article within the main article. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral. It is something of controversy but i don't think thats the only thing that he is known for. But I lean to oppose. Winterysteppe (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose (as another editor mentioned it's 537 words) but support trimming off 1/3. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose but support trimming per MrX. Politrukki (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the issue warrants a brief mention of ~2 sentences at most.CFredkin (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in theory - can be trimmed to a single paragraph, it shouldn't span over 3. -- Callinus (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The trend indicates a strong preference for keep with a reduction in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)
 * COMMENT! There is a separate page for the CAMPAIGN, which has a separate page for Trump's POSITIONS. This article is about TRUMP himself. Hence, I think your conclusion is wise (and correct). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed as per above, Merge most of this section into the Political Positions article, and Delete the rest Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"What the Trumps want, the Trumps get in this town"
I just heard this quote in a Chris Matthews biography, used by the mayor of the city regarding the 40-year tax abatement that was instrumental to the Commodore Hotel New York deal, which it presented as Trump's second major real estate transaction. I think this is very telling about the true nature of American business acumen. Could people please expand coverage of this sort of thing in the article, explaining more about what the Trump Organization connections did for Donald Trump's success? Wnt (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Trump a politician?
"Politician: NOUN 1   A person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office."

Would someone please explain to me any rationale under which Trump would not be considered a politician? Several have insisted on removing that term from the lead of this article. One need not have experience in government to be a politician (as has been proven time and time again). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   12:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * has mentioned this discussion, stating "there was no consensus" to include the word in the lead to describe Trump. I maintain that there was indeed consensus, although a !vote was not called for, and that is why the word remained in the lead from the conclusion of the discussion on March 15 to just yesterday. There was certainly no consensus in that discussion that it should be removed.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus in that discussion. You maintain their was. We disagree. And as far as your "that is why" argument, I disagree with that, too. (I've seen lag in this article in many respects over time. Inappropriate things done to disfigure this article, that remained longer than one would think before someone rectified the bad edits. I could get specific. So your argument is based on falacious assumption. [And you bold it. Go figure!]). IHTS (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A correct assessment (that we disagree), but a different conclusion. In the absence of consensus, no change was warranted on the basis of that discussion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   12:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sally was probably unaware of the archived discussion. You just friggin' reverted her. Not good. Your argument for reinstatement smacks of wikilawyering. IHTS (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk about wikilawyering; I have yet to hear anyone make a cogent argument for Trump not being a politician (my request above), yet we are bickering about the meaning of consensus and the implications of a lack of one, a rather well-defined concept here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   12:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you s/ read all the posts in this thread before commenting. Maybe you s/ show some respect for some significance to the fact that at least three other editors questioned the use of "politician" (prior to me). Maybe you s/ review how your arguments have so far been shown hollow and how you responded w/ escapist & off-putting snark. IHTS (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the word. Of course he's a politician.  Holding office is not a requirement.  And, it's his second time around in running for office.  Removing it was pointy, in my opinion.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  14:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello?! ("Of course he's a politician", is not an argument, in a discussion re the point/that topic. Is that your best argument, a non-argument?? And, your "second time around" ... where does/did that come from? [The quoted definition? Sorry I don't see it. The WP Politician article? Sorry I don't see it. Looks like you made that qualification up then!? Meanwhile, you can make qualifications up, but I can't?! Because if I can, and I think I s/b able to, just like you thought you s/b able to, then I'll propose my own - that the person labelled "politician" must have at one point represented voters & collected a paycheck from that line of work. {It's called "connotation". That is the connotation most readers's apply when reading "politician". Sally was one such reader.}]) IHTS (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * General Ization, spitting out a dictionary definition is a dog that doesn't hunt. Because if it did, then tell me right now, why you don't immediately go to articles Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina and add noun "politician" to the descriptive qualifiers in those articles' leads. (And please don't give the lame OTHERSTUFF deflection. Your definition applies equally to those BLPs, those individuals were directly involved in politics as candidates, and continue to be involved in politics after dropping out of their races, by endorsing, supporting, and campaigning for Trump and Cruz, respectively. So go add "politician" to those articles right now, if your definition argument is worth the pixels it consumes.) IHTS (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely think that "politician" should appear as a descriptor in the lead of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. But I'm not editing those articles.  If you are, please do. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   13:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What a predictable, escapist response. And a snide offense thrown in to-boot (offering me to make changes to those articles, when you know already clearly, that I don't feel it would be appropriate, here or there). IHTS (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are bordering on incivility. Please limit your comments to those which have some potential of leading to the improvement of the article. You asked why I didn't add the term to other articles (or if I thought it should be); I answered.  Chill, please.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   14:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is? An escapist reply, laced w/ sarcastic suggestion I do something you know I would never do. And about your command to "Chill", oh I'm sure that isn't condescending or patronizing in the least. (Hypocritical? I'd say so. Your whole approach to discussion here intellectually dishonest? I'd say so.) IHTS (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He's heavily engaged in party politics. Obviously yes. Objective3000 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guess what? I have no problem w/ stating in the article Trump is "engaged in party politics". (That is actually more definitive language, than label "politician" that people love to paint with. There is a difference. But I'm guessing you didn't anticipate this response.) IHTS (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that I used the phrase "engaged in party politics" is it is part of the OED definition of politician. But I'm guessing you didn't anticipate this response.:) Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have already replied to the inappropriateness using black & white dictionary definition as the measure here. (But you're the editor who likes repeating things already previously discussed, ad nauseum.) IHTS (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So what you guys are saying is that if any of us announce were running for president, were automatically a politician like that [snap]. Sally Book (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think with Trump it's gone beyond the announcement stage.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if you take a tangible step towards running for office(filing paperwork, gathering signatures, opening an office, holding a rally, etc.), yes, you are a politician. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is engaging in political activities, yes. (But that doesn't warrant throwing on the heavy saddle/label "politician". [There's a diff.]) IHTS (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Trump is a politician right now, and it should say so in the lead. He is running for office.  He has a reasonable chance of winning that office.  He has a very good chance of winning the nomination; when he wins the nomination any degree of ambiguity to him being a politician or not will be removed.  The only way I could see Trump not being classified as a politician is if he is denied the nomination and never involves himself in politics again, but I might be tempted to still classify him as being a politician in the light of dominating political coverage over a nine-month period.  Also, Fiorina at least should be listed as a politician as well because she has made TWO runs for office.  p  b  p  13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem w/ saying "politician as of recently" (your "right now"). "Politician" is a label w/ a connotation that conveys to most readers that during the person's life they have represented people thru election and pulled a paycheck, at least one time, for however long, and now they either still are doing that, or endeavoring to repeat. About Fiorina (and don't forget Carson), how about putting your edits where your contentions are? (General Ization wouldn't, choosing to be escapist & offensive instead.) IHTS (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is merely one definition of politician. Objective3000 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence it says that Trump is a candidate for president. That makes much more sense than calling the orange frankenstein a politician when clearly he is not. Sally Book (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Fiorina, that is) p  b  p  18:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to be impressed!? (Please explain to everyone why you skipped Ben Carson.) IHTS (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC) You didn't even do what you implied you did. (Look at the title of this Talk thread. Look at the lead to the article. The issue is application of label "politician". Your edit added language that Carly is a "political candidate". Not the same. [I have no problem saying the same thing in the lead about Trump.]) Did you get cold feet, Purplebackpack89?? IHTS (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that wasn’t the first edit I made to the page. I added “politician” to Carly Fiorina’s lede here. An IP (you?) removed it here and I added “political candidate” later (after her #2 to Cruz schlep) in the edit you cite.  Also, there’s no need to goad me into making edits to this or other pages.  p  b  p  13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you added "politician" as you said you did, then it got reverted. (No, I'm not the IP who reverted you.) But then see what you did? You backed off label "politician", the whole point of this thread, in the Fiorina article. So you're illustrating my point. (That label "politician" isn't appropriate either there, or here. And you replaced it with something you thought would better stick [and language which I have no objection to]. And someone replaced it with language which I have no objection to.) IHTS (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He´s a politician (among other things, as the lead says), that´s WP:BLUESKY. Not that it´s hard to source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument that Trump and his supporters use this that he is not a politician, he's an outsider. Even his supporters wouldn't even call him a politician because they know he's not. Sally Book (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of WP:IDLI and WP:IDHT happening here. This article referring to Trump as a politician has nothing to do with his supporters or his detractors, it has to do with the actual definition of the word, if reliable sources refer to him as such, and that any content included needs to remain verifiable and WP:NPOV. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But if it has to do with the definition, how come on Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are credited as politicians. If Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for president he would be a politician because he was the governor of California. Sally Book (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Point: Schwartzenegger can't run for President because he was not born in the U.S. (nor was he an American citizen until he was 36 years old). Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Schwartzenegger is (unquestionably) a (former) politician, along with his other notable occupations. (Very few politicians are only or have always been politicians.  Most have been engaged in, and generally successful in, some other profession or business role that provided them with the freedom, resources and connections to enter politics.) <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   00:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. - Ronald Reagan was a politician before he became or ran for Governor of California, because he sought and won election as the the leader of an extremely powerful union in that state and elsewhere, with influence on state and national policy. Not all politicians are or strive to be members of government. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   00:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument re Schwartzenneger doesn't make sense ... He is a former politician since he was an elected office-holder. No one has said here "politician" must be their only occupation in a lifetime. So someone not in politics before, "enters politics" according to you, and I agree with that language. (I dispute that it is the same as label "politician" - as have explained numerous times in the thread.) Your argument re Reagan makes more sense. But am not going to debate w/ you [whether "politician" was or wasn't apprpriate label for him before he was ever elected to political office] when the Carly Fiorina/Ben Carson examples are here & now.) IHTS (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate with you at all. In fact, I'm doing my best to ignore you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   02:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's called a "discussion page". But as anyone can see by reading the thread, you rather lay challenges on the table, then when confronted w/ answers, you walk. Then continue to post other challenges. IHTS (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting thread as some think the classification as politician as negative and some as positive and both want to reject the term. It's irrelevant as to positive or negative; The classification is what it is. He is rather heavily engaged in politics. Can anyone deny that? What does that make him? Objective3000 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes him like you said. I disagree w/ the black & white view that is synonymous w/ and justifies label "politician". (I've made myself clear more than once in this thread. Oh! You're the editor who repeats & repeats & re-repeats. Yeah.) IHTS (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is your third personal attack in this thread. I'll no longer engage you. Objective3000 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well said. Despite the efforts of some to make it so, politician is by definition neither a compliment nor an insult; it's simply an occupation (possibly one of several or many).  That some may think it connotes either status or a particular moral alignment is immaterial to how the term is used here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   01:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Same lame "dictionary definition" argument. (The article is written for general readers, and yeah, many see the word w/ connotation of previous office-holding status. Most readers are not reading the WP w/ the OED in their lap.) IHTS (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How are general readers misled by Trump being called a politician?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Go read my earlier posts. IHTS (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries exist for a reason Ihardlythinkso, it is how we define the meanings of the words we use. I don't think it is misleading at all. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">HighInBC</b> 04:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How patronizing. (Do you have anything substantive to contribute to discussion??) IHTS (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Trump is a celebrity who is running for office. BTW cf. Ralph Nader, in the identical situation -- a non-politician who ran for President. This should probably be an RfC if folks desire a definitive conclusion upon which to edit the article, as this is simply a round-robin. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is sad that the bar is so low to become a politician, but there the bar sits. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">HighInBC</b> 08:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You think that (your opinion), so it's *fact*. For a discussion thread even. (Or did I miss your point somehow?) IHTS (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to contribute to emotional discussions, but I'm compelled to agree with Softlavender. Running for office, even successfully, does not automatically make one a "politician". My election as president of my state medical society did not make me one, nor did my election to the local school board, because politics is not my primary vocation - or even avocation. Another good example at the national level is Wendell Wilkie, a businessman who ran for president, but was never labeled a politician in sources, AFAIK.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not really relevant to the question of Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * DoctorJoeE, we're talking about political office (hence the word "politician"), not medical societies or school boards. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that. Did you notice that I was trying to support your position, which was that "running for office" does not automatically brand a candidate as a politician? That was my point. A politician is someone who makes running for political office his or her career.  You and Jack Upland are also ignoring the Willkie analogy, which couldn't be more relevant to Trump.  Willkie was a politician, by most definitions, yet is never labeled as such, even on Wikipedia; so why call Trump one, when he has spent 99% of his career outside of politics?  If Trump is a politician, then Velveeta is cheese.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "A politician is someone who makes running for political office his or her career." No, actually; what you are describing is a career politician, a distinction I plan to explain at the RfC when I have a chance. Consider contra soldier versus career soldier.   The lowliest conscript, having no intention of making the military his career, is still a soldier when he picks up a gun. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   19:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A politician is someone who runs for political office. Trump is running for political office (President of the United States) therefore he should be called a politician. 20:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk)
 * Then be consistent and go add "politician" to the ledes of the Carson, Fiorini, Nader, and Perot BLPs, which currently lack that descriptor. IHTS (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump has considered himself as being a politician since he announced. Anyone who is running for office is a politician since they threw their hats into the business of politics. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I'm seeing, if I may presume to generalize, is basically this: "Of course Trump is a politician, because ... well ... because! He's running for office, and that's what politicians do!" But no one has come up with anything more convincing than that. Like the classic line about pornography, a politician is just something you know when you see one.

For the record, it should be pointed out that Trump himself has said repeatedly that he is not a politician -- and, in fact, that that is what sets him apart, because "politicians are all talk and no action. I'm the opposite." (Not that WP should cater to his preference, of course.) Also for the record,  Webster's defines a politician as "a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government". I suppose WP will call him whatever we want to call him; but by the official definition, he isn't one. As for the soldier analogy above, ask any professional soldier whether a "lowly conscript" is a soldier. Unanimous answer: "Not yet." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion on one page. Also, that is but one of the definitions of politician. Objective3000 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the simplest answer is the best one. The reason that nobody's come up with other answers is that that answer is so simple and direct that there doesn't need to be another answer.  Also, I'm not seeing the soldier analogy as particularly relevant: it's like saying the difference between a soldier and a SOLDIER.  p  b  p  13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the relevance of the soldier argument, see my introduction of it up-page (soldier versus career soldier). DoctorJoeE has perverted the argument by theoretically limiting the respondents on the question to "professional soldiers", i.e., the military elite.  However, how the military elite uses the term soldier was not the point, nor is how the political elite uses the term politician the question; how the common man uses it is, and there is obviously no "unanimous" answer on that point. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   13:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So now I'm "perverting the argument". This is why, as I said in my very first contribution, that I hate to contribute to emotional discussions; they invariably get personal. I was merely pointing out that the analogy was inexact, at best. Clearly, this discussion has become hopeless enmeshed in minutiae, and we are not going to resolve anything here.  In my 40-odd years of following politics, I've never before seen anyone call dabblers like Trump "politicians". No one referred to Ross Perot or Ralph Nader as politicians, for example; and none of the three major dictionaries include "running for office" in their primary definitions; but so what?  This is still a free country, sort of, and everyone will call him what they wish to call him.  Call him a banana, if you like; it's just not that important.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There was nothing personal in saying that you perverted the argument; that is a perfectly reasonable description of what happens when you take a logical argument and twist it or misstate it in ways the original proponent of the argument never intended. I explained clearly how I believed you had done so. And two of your claims above are false, as demonstrated here and elsewhere (i.e., at the RfC): both Perot and Nader have indeed been called "politicians", and dictionaries do indeed state that someone seeking office is a politician (several of them, including the OED, include this within the primary definition). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   14:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please be calm. The only mention of Nader I see above is in an argument against ("a non-politician who ran for president") and I don't see Perot at all (perhaps I missed him), but his article refers to him only as a "businessman", as does the general public, in my experience. OED's definition is "A person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office" (emphasis mine) -- see my point above re: "professional" -- and if you want to use that in your argument, you're going to have to define "candidate", since Trump hasn't been nominated, at least not yet.  As I said, we're enmeshed in minutiae.  You seem to want to turn this into a full-blown argument, but I don't; I simply don't think it's an important distinction. You're welcome to the last word if you want it. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC created
Since the question remains unresolved, and this unstructured discussion doesn't seem to be producing a clear consensus, I have taken Softlavender's suggestion to heart and opened a formal RfC at: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. It is located there because the question is applicable to all candidates in the current US Presidential election. Please participate in the RfC there. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   12:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SST flyer 05:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump → Donald J. Trump – Clearly WP:COMMONNAME as it is used by Encyclopedia Britannica, Washington Post, Goodreads, and various news agencies, not to mention by Trump himself on social media and when he talks in third person. Proud User (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Seriously? You think  it's more common with the middle initial?  Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave as is.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I strongly reject the premise that "Donald J. Trump" is WP:COMMONNAME for Trump.  A search of Google News for "Donald Trump" returns 118 million hits, while a search for "Donald J. Trump" (with or without period) returns only 169,000.  If there were not several orders of magnitude of difference, I would not view this as a definitive test, but there is, so I do.  Leave it where it is. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   02:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. - Searches for search terms with mutual exclusions added produce very similar, but actually even more compelling, results: 103 million hits versus 55,600 hits. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   02:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Middle initial in infobox's heading
Look folks, see. Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers such as often in her/his signature, etc. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here." Cf. infobox header "Hillary Rodham Clinton" at Hillary Clinton, etc. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * See below discussion at . WP:COMMONNAME for Trump is Donald Trump, regardless of how he describes himself or signs his name. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * reply - Thanks. I agree that COMMONNAME applies to the name of the article. This discussion is about the heading to the infobox, which should be the full name used as used in news accounts (and indeed this is what the current version of this article does).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, the title is fine the way it is, but the INFObox should have pertinent information in it and a subject's full name is pertinent, and not the same thing as COMMONNAME. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)