Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 14

Right-wing populist
User:Drmies The article currently says that Trump is widely described as "right-wing populist". Can you please provide some additional mainstream, non-partisan (i.e. not Guardian, Salon, etc.), reliable sources that have applied this term to Trump?CFredkin (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I have more faith than you do in The Guardian, but sure: Der Spiegel, Washington Post, Bloomberg. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , this is kind of a dick move. I didn't ask CFredkin all pedantically if they could gain consensus about their removal of the phrase; I simply made a point about sourcing. I'm not going to go around placing a warning for removal of sourced information on your talk page, so do us all a favor and look up for some nicely neutral, international, well-respected sources that call place Mr. Trump in the "right-wing populism" section--a placement which really should not be controversial, let's face it. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump is indeed widely described as "right-wing populist", or close variations thereof . CFredkin and StAnselm should probably study some sources (or watch a news program) before impulsively removing this defining characteristic of Trump's political strategy.- MrX 02:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian, and all the other sources given, are just fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This article previously said: Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist". It now says: Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist" or "right-wing populist". As far as I can tell, all of the sources provided by MrX reference "populist". NONE of the sources the MrX provided contain the phrase "right-wing populist". The WP source provided by Drmries doesn't reference "right-wing populist". So, we've got a CSM article which references someone from an institute in Berlin, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and a Bloomberg article written by a columnist in Berlin. All of those are European sources where "right-wing populist" is a relatively mainstream term. I don't think that qualifies as "widely" for politics in the US.

And I'm sorry, but I have to say that MrX and VolunteerMarek have ZERO credibility making that argument here after claiming in the last 24 hours that the recent private meeting between the AG and Bill Clinton is neither significant nor relevant for inclusion at Hillary Clinton email controversy. The sourcing and relevance of that topic is infinitely greater than this.CFredkin (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The points in your first paragraph are worthy of debate, but saying that other editors have "ZERO credibility" is an unwarranted personal attack. The content in discussion here is about political ideology and strategy; the content in discussion on the email controversy article is about someone who is not the subject of the article talking to someone else about grandchildren. Some perspective might be helpful.- MrX 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The "someone" was her husband, former president, and a chief Hillary campaigner. (Perspective much!?) IHTS (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But they were talking about grandchildren. Nothing to see here! Doc   talk  14:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ihardlythinkso: I don't know what your point is. Nothing you wrote changes the substance or veracity of my comment.- MrX 14:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. X, when I read your statement above, "Trump is indeed widely described as "right-wing populist", or close variations thereof" followed by 6 sources that make not one mention of the phrase "right-wing populist, I am reminded of someone who does not fully understand NPOV, particularly WP:SYNTH. Doc   talk  14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. If I say "this is a blue car", and later say "this is a fast car", then it is not WP:SYNTH to say "this is a fast blue car". (See also WP:SYNTHNOT). Does anyone here actually disagree that "Trump is described as populist" or "Trump is described as right-wing" as separate constructs? I assume not. Then the question becomes, how does juxtapositioning those two phrase change the meaning?- MrX 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have removed the text as a BLP violation per WP:BLPREMOVE., saying "the description itself is fine, although a more explicit source is better" is not how BLP works here. Neither article calls Trump a "right-wing populist" - the closest we get is Spiegel comparing him to "Europe's right-wing populists". For something contentious like this, we certainly need an explicit source. StAnselm (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that you have been blocked before for edit warring under a fallacious appeal of WP:BLP, do you really think it's a good idea for you to violate the 1RR imposed on this article? Considering that the Arbcom case that resulted in the discretionary sanctions imposed on this article were, in part, for this same type of overreaching conduct, you may want to consider whether it's wise for you to be doing any reverting on WP:BLP grounds.- MrX 11:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an admin, I would reject the idea the BLP exemption applies to that revert. --Neil N  talk to me 13:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no mention of "right-wing populist" in the first source that was provided, and the second essay says, "Trump, like Europe's right-wing populists,...". So some massively biased reporter, in an essay piece, compares Trump to "Europe's right-wing populists". BFD. More terrible sourcing that didn't support the statement. Whether it's a "massive" BLP violation is neither here nor there. Doc   talk  13:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a big deal when users edit war and misrepresent policies to get the upper hand in a content dispute.- MrX 13:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced must be immediately removed per policy. The material is contentious and the sourcing was lousy. Doc   talk  13:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How on earth was this even supposed to be accepted at face value as "sourced"? Edit summary: "the description itself is fine, although a more explicit source is better". A more "explicit" source? What kind of lazy garbage is this where you can insert a "description" that is unsupported by the source to hold the place for a more "descriptive" source that actually uses the phrase?! The person that added this does seem to pay careful attention to what's actually in a source.  Doc   talk  13:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , for all your pontifications on my talk page, you just broke the rule you said I would break, and are thus eminently blockable. is quite correct that the BLP exemption doesn't apply here. (BTW, why is "right-wing populist" a bad word anyway?) It's funny how y'all are making so much here of nothing, crying foul over the fact that the sky is blue also on 4 July, as if...dare I say it...political correctness is running amok here! Oh! Donald, the PC crowd is messing with your article! Seriously, this isn't worth the dispute, and no matter how many snails Doc finds to put salt on, that The Donald is a right-wing populist is both true and verified, and good for him--he wouldn't be where he is if he weren't. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is a closer call than NeilN suggests. There are some labels which people people use to describe themselves, so are therefore not viewed as negative by that person, but another person might find it abhorrent. Many political labels fall into that category. I personally would be quite offended if that label were applied to me, so I have no problem viewing it as a bad term. (Obviously, if Trump self-describes himself this way, that issue is moot, but that hasn't been asserted AFAIK.) I think this discussion should proceed, and determine whether there are sufficient sources to warrant the phrase "widely described". I examined a few, and many failed. One, for example, compared him to European right-wing populists, but I hope we can agree that comparing someone to X is not the same as describing someone as X. (I get that it is close, and a common trait among sleazy journalists, but we don't have to enable them.) The WP article compared him to fascists. I hope (but am not sure) that we would have a consensus that such a compare is sleazy, not a RS justifying labeling him a fascist.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if the label were "fascist", "xenophobe", or "RINO", but what we're talking about here is a descriptor that is pretty mild, at least to my understanding.- MrX 15:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's why I said "closer call". At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, the term is neither so egregious that any sensible editor would immediately agree it qualifies for the BLP exemption, nor do I see it so benign that removing it per BLP is obviously blockable. We could debate it at the appropriate notice board, but I don't think that is necessary. We are debating the inclusion right now, let's continue and reach a consensus.


 * On that point, I wonder if someone would be willing to go to the trouble of assembling a table with the purported sources and the exact language. I see nine or so link up thread, but when I started looking, some didn't even use the phrase, and others used it in a way that didn't seem to me were explicitly applying the term to him. I didn't look at them all, but I haven't seen evidence to support the "widely described" qualifier. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but let's narrow the scope of the task. Which part is contested? That he's widely viewed as populist, or that he's widely viewed as right-wing (or both)?- MrX 15:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * in fact, it has just been reported to the EW noticeboard: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. StAnselm (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (EC) I would like to point out that "Right wing populism is a distinct entity or political position; it does not mean "right-wing and populist" as suggested by the "blue car" analogy, or by MrX's question above. The term is mainly used in other countries; the term does not have much currency in the U.S., and according to our Wikipedia article the same phenomenon is often called "radical right" or "extreme right" here, which would certainly NOT be neutral terms. The description at our article does match Trump's positions in many ways, but per WP:OR we can't simply decide that it suits him. And discussion here indicates that most of us don't even realize that it is a term with a particular meaning, rather than a combination of two other terms. Considering that the term is not used or well understood in U.S. politics, and that most of the sources for using this term are non-U.S., and that Trump himself has never embraced it, I think we should leave it out. "Populist" is appropriate; "right-wing populist" is not IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's the first reasonable argument against that I've seen so far. We should probably avoid connecting "right-wing" and "populist" in the article. What I believe we can all agree on is that Trump's current (expressed) political stance is on the right or conservative side of the spectrum (in the context of the US politics). I think there is strong case for adding that he is widely regarded as populist, or that he has run a populist campaign, to the lead. I actually thought it was already in the lead, but either I'm misremebering or it was removed.- MrX 16:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , look at the first paragraph of Right-wing populist. Seems pretty apt, down to the increased but selective domestic spending. I think this car is blue, and that it's a blue car to boot. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it "seems pretty apt", but that is an opinion - basically WP:OR. The important thing is that even though we may think the term describes him well, Reliable Sources have not used it about him. They have said "right wing" and they have said "populist" but they have not said "right-wing populist". This is not a quibble; the term has a specific meaning; the whole is more than the sum of its parts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with MelanieN. Right-wing populist is not right-wing+populist, but a specific ideology.  The term is rarely used to describe politics in the U.S., which developed very differently from Europe or even other former European colonies.  A glaring difference is that Trump has not set up his own party and the Trump movement is just a coalition put together for the election.  There are of course parallels between Trump and right-wing populism, for example his criticism of elites and immigration, but those are not unusual positions in the U.S.  TFD (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of sourcing for "populist" - almost everyone says that about him - but in his case populism is an approach or campaign style, not an ideology. I think one of the problems at this thread is that many sources, including many that have been cited here in support of "right-wing populist", do not actually use that term; instead they identify him as having right wing positions and a populist approach. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't know how many do call him that clear cut but Bloomberg sure does.--TMCk (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Having just got out of bed (living on the other side of the word; not being an American and all that) - MelanieN is right, of course, and I'm surprised MrX wasn't familiar with the term. This is precisely why we needed explicit sourcing, and why the addition was a clear BLP violation. I would also like to remind everyone that contentious material does not have to be negative in order to be removed on sight - " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but the key words there are "unsourced or poorly sourced". This is well sourced. So please stop trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies, which is itself disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, . Seriously, "right wing populist" is exactly what he is and he is described as such by sources. People need to stop trying to gaslight others and stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rubbish - it was poorly sourced. Neither source backed up the claim. If you had produced these other sources before it might have been different (though the "widely" would still have been OR), but neither of the two sources present were good enough. Just admit you made a BLP violation and be done with it. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of those sources, two are European (as I have said, the term is well known and understood in Europe but almost unknown in the U.S.) and I don't know if Vox is considered reliable or neutral as a source. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So? WP is international and so are our sources.--TMCk (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But he is a candidate for political office in the U.S. Regardless the sourcing does not support the use of the term "widely", and if it hasn't been widely used to describe him I'm not sure why we would include it.CFredkin (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, once again an editor has restored the unsupported statement. Is anyone going to do anything about it? Doc   talk  23:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Donald Trump
Editors interested in creating and improving Wikipedia articles related to Donald Trump are welcome to join WikiProject Donald Trump. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's like putting a bullseye on your back. Doc   talk  05:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Demagogue Coverage
Stephen Hawking famously declared that Trump is a "demagogue". I've found lots of sources that repeat the phrase. Opinion pieces in particular, which are greatly valued as sources here, seem to back up the label.,,,,... I propose that we add the term "demagogue" to the lead. Doc  talk  05:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if Stephen Hawking said it ... have heard he's the most intelligent person on the planet. (Oh wait. Also heard he did not understand why Trump is popular. When to answer that he could simply have asked a supporter or two.) ... Never mind! IHTS (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "racist"? I am not telling that he is the one, but this is an accusation/claim that appears in a very large number of RS and therefore must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither should be included as a description of him. Period. If these terms come up in connection with particular issues, they can be (and are) mentioned with appropriate attribution. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The term racist is unacceptable per WP:LABEL. The only description we could use that is acceptable is "conservative."  TFD (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, speaking in very general terms, all subjects should be covered exactly as they described in sources, and this is non-negotiable. It does not mean saying something good or bad about the person. According to WP:NPOV, it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It tells " all of the significant views ". The only question if a view was significant, i.e. covered/claimed in a very large number of sources. I think it was. We need to describe political views by a politician exactly as they have been described in RS. This is reference work. This is especially important in the context of the election campaign because his future decisions will depend on his views. The decisions can be catastrophic and cost life to many thousand people like the war started by W. Bush. Readers should be informed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The end part of your statement demonstrates why you shouldn't even edit this topic. NPOV indeed. Doc   talk  13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I do not edit these subjects. This is a 3rd party opinion by an outsider, and a policy-based opinion. What I said about the war and responsibility is not a POV, but a commonplace that comes from thousands publications, including non-fiction, movies, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well what the heck is this if you don't "edit these subjects"? Doc   talk  13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an answer to that Q, too. IHTS (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

2012 birther campaign in lead section
I'm surprised there's no mention of 2012 birther campaign / flirtation with the Republican presidential primary in the lead section. This subject received enormous amounts of attention from the press at the time and afterwards and has been credited as laying the groundwork for his 2016 candidacy (e.g. here). I'd think this is more biographically significant than his short-lived candidacy for the Reform Party nomination in 2000, which gets a sentence. {I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Religion
Why does Obama get to have a stated religion in his infobox, but Trump doesn't get to?ShadowDragon343 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See Village pump (policy)/Archive 126. clpo13(talk) 21:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Religion is being removed from the infobox of all politicians who don't meet the following requirements:

Here are Wikipedia's requirements for listing a religion in the infobox or categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." If nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per 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". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per 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." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)


 * Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 126.


 * We just haven't gotten to the Obama page yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands
Are there any editors who are interested in helping to expand the Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You think that's "encyclopedic"? Just a weak attempt at notability. Doc   talk  09:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, Tiny Hands redirects here. Is that a BLPVIO? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion? Yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Order of Politics section
User:ThiefOfBagdad: This recent change to the Politics section seemed a bit confusing to me. It had a 2000 Campaign section following an Involvement in Politics Prior to 2015 section. I realize the campaigns were grouped together separately from the Involvement section, but it still seemed confusing to me when I saw it.CFredkin (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"non-interventionist"
I realize that one of the difficulties with Trump is that he often says mutually contradictory things, but given that he wants to "bomb ISIS" and send troops back to the middle east, I think we should eschew describing him as "non-interventionist" in the lede. Both sources and his own statements are contradictory. Roughly what he seems to mean by "non-interventionists" is "it's bad if someone other than me does it". Anyway, I don't think there's enough support for that to be in the lede.

A similar issue arises with trade where he has described himself as "free trader".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it says "often" non-interventionist, although your summary is probably more accurate. I would be OK with removing the "non-interventionist" thing from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Volunteer Marek that it should be removed&mdash;he has been inconsistent and supports intervention in some cases, and the sources say so. Neutralitytalk 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed "non-interventionist" from the lede. There is still a mention, suitably hedged, in the body of the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems good, thanks. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
I would like to gauge consensus for adding "Trump is widely regarded as populist." to the lead.- MrX 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A few sources


 * Poll
 * 1) Support. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. Possible alternate wording: "Trump is generally regarded as a populist"? --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I agree with the comments of Iselilja below.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -- Hard to argue with that much documentation. Objective3000 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC
 * 3) Support per the abundance of diverse sources.- MrX 18:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The term "right-wing populist" is to be inferred from sources that don't directly use that specific term, per SYNTH. That's how we source things here.  Doc   talk  02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support —I would favour "right-wing populist", but this is a good first step. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I don't think anybody really disputes that he is, in fact, a populist, and if they do then the wide variety of high quality sources seem to answer that definitively. The wording in question seems fine as well. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Partly oppose I will note that most of the sources are from political commentators, and not from political scientists. The one source (Washington Post) that actually is from a political scientist, Cas Mudde, a leading scholar on right wing populism explicitly says Trump is not a populist "Trump himself doesn’t hold a populist radical right ideology". For more on Cas Mudde's view:The Power of Populism? Not Really! and As American as Trump. Though I agree that most polical commentators refer to him as a populist. The sentence ought to read: Trump is regarded by most political commentators as a populist, because MrX's proposal begs the question "regarded . I also believe this sentence should be inserted in the third paragraph in the lede, which deals with his political positions, and not in the first paragraph. Ideally we should insert something about Trump being an nontraditional politician that doesn't fit neatly into established categories in political science. Iselilja (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think these comments are excellent and I agree with them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As MelanieN pointed out, the sources show Trump has a populist campaign style, rather than being an actual populist. I would also point out that the term can have different meanings, so stating Trump is a populist without explaining what is meant would be unclear.  TFD (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, of course. Plenty of sourcing for the term, plenty of sourcing for "right-wing" too. And let's remind ourselves that "populist" really isn't a bad word. Calling Donald Trump a populist is not like calling Hillary Clinton a liberal, which is a very loaded word (unlike "progressive"). Anyway, whether you want to call him a populist or whether you want to say that his political persona is that of a populist (even if one who doesn't really invoke "the people" as much as he invokes himself) is really not so important; and I do agree that the third (political) paragraph is a good place. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Many reliable sources (in particular, sources that aren't opinion pieces) do clearly state that Trump's a populist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. As this source tells, "Trump isn't a populist but a demagogue. The difference being that a populist seeks political power to work for the good of the average citizen. A demagogue claims the same motivation, but is truly only interested in aggrandizing himself.". My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not the proposal on the table. Please scroll up to the top of the section and read again.- MrX 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose the proposal on the table. Read my oppose again, maybe twice or three times. Doc   talk  03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no. This proposal doesn't include "right wing".--TMCk (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. (He's facetiously opposing a proposal lacking "right wing", since that's what WP-chaos wants, and WP-chaos seems to come out on top around here.) p.s. The poll is an unnecessary venture anyway. (Who would argue that Trump is not a populist candidate or running a populist campaign?! Duh.) IHTS (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're correct in your first assessment it still doesn't make sense considering his overall stance.--TMCk (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I may play "devil's advocate" in arguments sometimes and have a Sarcasm Level of 5. It's on my user page. IHTS gets it, and you do not. Stop commenting on this part of the thread and get to the real business at hand. Yeesh. Doc   talk  05:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If I can find at least as much documentation referring to Hillary as a "liberal" will all the supporters of this proposal support adding that term to the lede of her bio?CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. And good luck with it. A quick search finds just as many places arguing that she is not liberal (or progressive as per the more current term) as that she is. There is nowhere near the unanimity that there is for Trump being a populist - or for that matter, for Elizabeth Warren being a liberal. (Our article calls her progressive.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources I believe you're referring to seem to debate whether Clinton is liberal enough. The section on her Political Positions in her bio repeatedly refers to her as liberal.  Currently the ledes for the bios for both candidates discuss their positions on key issues.  If we're going to elevate political labels as important enough to include in Trump's bio, why not in Clinton's?CFredkin (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To repeat: Sounds like a proposal to make at her article, not this one. Or are you trying to make some kind of backhanded comment about this article? Are you trying to say we should NOT include the term "populist" in the lede here, because there is not a comparable description in the lede of the Clinton article? If so, please say so directly in the spirit of this "poll". If not, please take this suggestion to the Clinton talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make (and the reason that I haven't weighed in officially on this proposal) is that I think a fair argument can be made either for or against the inclusion of well-sourced, widely-used labels in the lede for political candidates. But I feel strongly that it is only fair for the same standard to be applied in both articles for candidates for the same office, and I am quite certain that an equally strong argument can be made that the label "liberal" can be applied to Hillary (based on the points I made above).  Also, I am anticipating that if this proposal is approved and I then make the same proposal on the Talk page for Hillary's bio, the scrum of very dedicated editors who guard that page will reject it out of hand.  So I think it's fair to ask whether someone who weighs in in support of this proposal would be willing to support the same proposal on Hillary's bio.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no such Wikipedia standard, so appealing to it is futile. If you wish, you can propose a new guideline, or build consensus for changing the style manual, or start a WikiProject, but for now these content discussions are independent of each other. For my part, if you can quote at least 15 reliable sources, from a least two countries, including some left-leaning sources, that plainly describe Hillary as liberal, then I will support such a proposal with gusto.- MrX 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It really *should* be "right wing populist".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How about you find one source that uses that exact term besides the op-ed? Especially if you're going to put it in scare quotes? Doc   talk  23:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is source currently used on this page, and it does describes Trump as a right-wing populist. If not exact wording, that is what this source actually tells. This is fair summary. If anyone wants to use exact wording, that would be a "post-fascist populist". Is it better? I think "right-wing" is actually more neutral and consistent with our BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Using your logic, the existence of a reliable source calling Hillary "corrupt" would justify the inclusion of a statement in her bio calling her "unethical" because it doesn't sound as bad. Why don't you make that argument on her article and see what kind of reception you get.CFredkin (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a cross post of a comment I made at the edit warring notice board. It seems relevant -- One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist":, , , and notably  the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist."  Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain.  Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The RS list stating that he is running as a populist is impressive. I personally think it is obvious that he is running as a right-wing populist. But, this would require more documentation considering his constantly shifting and contradictory positions. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this discussion starting with VolunteerMarek's post should really be in the section above. I'm not sure if an admin is required to make that move....CFredkin (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a very, very rigged area. Although it's "claimed" that consensus must be achieved before making any contentious edits, that is absolutely ignored. It's now been brought to my attention that consensus must be achieved before removing contentious BLP material that never had consensus in the first place. So CON, NPOV, NOR and BLP are all reimagined when it comes to Trump. Congratulations. Doc   talk  01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you really believe that, then you should run, not walk, to WP:ARCA and seek clarification or amendment.- MrX 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You gotta be kidding me. The pink banner that shows up at the top of the article when editing it is ignored. Poorly sourced, contentious material in a BLP is actually allowed to stand. Removing that material is prohibited. Do you need some more people to explain it to you? Doc   talk  03:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * MrX is right, Doc. As are you . Per WP:BLPREMOVE, we remove (at once) any interpretation that the source itself doesn't clearly state. And we likewise remove any information that's sourced to an opinion piece (see WP:NEWSBLOG) or otherwise poorly sourced. (Or at least we're supposed to.) Sorry. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 07:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for you that while in theory that is what is supposed to happen, it is not happening here. This remains in the article. It is very poorly sourced. Take a minute and look at it, then get back to me. Doc   talk  05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that the information is poorly sourced, Doc. I'm accordingly removing it per WP:BLPREMOVE (and WP:NEWSBLOG). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing it! Per policy! Now, I... probably should have mentioned that BLP policy has been a bit "muddied" recently regarding this area. I was threatened with a block, by the lord of this domain, were I to remove the exact same thing you did for the exact same reasons. I do hope that: a)You do not get blocked, and b) the poorly-sourced content is not restored for a third time without any attempt at achieving any sort of consensus, again. Cheers! :) Doc   talk  07:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet, Doc! :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, leading political scientist on right wing populism Cas Mudde does not regard Trump as a populist (but does regard him as right wing based on holding nativist and authoritarian views). I didn't have time to read through all the sources above, but are any of those sources political scientists? I also want to quote a bit from one of Mudde's articles:
 * "Trump, despite ample assertions to the contrary, is not a populist. Like European counterparts, he argues that “the elite” are uniformly corrupt. But unlike European politicians, he does not exalt the virtues of “the people.” Trump is not the Vox Populi (voice of The People) but the Vox Donaldus (voice of The Donald). Rather than claiming to offer common-sense solutions or follow the will of the people, Trump promises to make “better deals” because he knows “the art of the deal.” As he declared when he formed his 2016 exploratory committee, “I am the only one who can make America truly great again!”" (My bolding).
 * I would like to have Mudde's view briefly included in the body of the article because he is a leading scholar on right wing populism. Whether he represents a majority or minority view among political scientists (as opposed to journalists), I don't know, but even if minority view, it's a significant minority view. Iselilja (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My very best wishes, The Washington Post opinion piece by Finchelstein and Piccato does not describe Trump as a "right-wing populist," it describes him as a "populist" and notes that he may be "showing us the future of U.S. right-wing politics." RW populism is a specfic ideology which is to the right of the traditional Right, in this case the Republican Party, and the authors do not say that.  In fact they group Trump closest with Burlesconi and Hugo Chavez, neither of whom were right-wing populists.  (Chavez was not even right-wing.)
 * Also, we do not know the degree of acceptance of their view or that of Mudde. What we do know is that Trump uses a populist campaign style, which btw is a constant feature in the U.S. since the American Revolution and Jeffersonian Democracy.
 * TFD (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mudde does keep getting advertised as a "leading political scientist" or "leading scholar" or whatever. But he seems to keep getting so advertised on WP itself more than elsewhere. Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cas Mudde is probably the leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements in the post Second World War era. Of course that does not make him infallible, but it does elevate his opinion over those of non-expert commentators.  TFD (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that Mudde is a "leading expert on the classification of extreme right political movements", TFD. See, for example, Cas Mudde entry: "This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources." --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Populist radical right parties in Europe (1997) has 1,353 cites shown in Google scholar, it was hailed as "a benchmark for future work on the radical right." The reviewer particularly noted, "One of the main strengths of the book is the conceptualization and classification of the radical right."  The reviewer saw that as a major contribution.  Whether or not anyone bothers to write a Wikipedia article about him or how well it is prepared is irrelevant.  TFD (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Sr?
Given that there is a Donald Trump Jr., isn't the presidential candidate's full name Donald John Trump Sr.? Genealogizer (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Not unless he chooses to use that style.  And afaik he does not.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that Trump Jr has a son called Donald John Trump III. By your rationale, that would make Trump Jr's name Donald John Trump II.  But he doesn't use such a style, and it's not up to WP to create one for him.
 * (I can't believe I'm having anything whatsoever to do with Donald Trump, but hey, Wikipedia calls on all of us to make extreme sacrifices sometimes ...). --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump signature size is inappropriately minuscule
Trump's sig size in the infobox is minuscule, and consequently looks silly or wrong. I increased it a moderate amount (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should), and was reverted by user  with rationale "so man’s signature not substantially taller than similar woman’s signature (compare with, e.g., Hillary Clinton)". That argument is absurd (a "man versus woman" issue, huh?!). It is also comparing apples to oranges: the two articles have different template infoboxes, Clinton's signature is presented in-line by its infobox template, Trump's signature is presented by its infobox template not in-line, but solo at the infobox bottom, where there is ample more space. (Thus if you artificially equate the two, you end up with Clinton's sig size looking appropriate size for the manner her infobox presents it [a line item], and Trump's sig size looking inappropriately puny for the manner his infobox presents it [solo at infobox bottom].)

Don't minisculize Trump's sig with a faulty bogus apples-oranges logic--do what's appropriate for each case (Clinton's sig, as line item, would appear inappropriate if blown up in size; Trump's sig, assigned to the infobox bottom space, appears inappropriately minuscule when shrunk to somehow "equal" Clinton's sig size). No reader is going to notice or care or compare sig sizes between different articles, they will only notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it. (Wow, I think all of this is obvious, I'm dying of boredom stating the obvious.) IHTS (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG talk 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . (I think .5 is still small for the available space, but at least it's better.) IHTS (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * According to IHTS, "no reader is going to notice ... or compare sig sizes between different articles...". But cf. Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument", 508-09. "Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." And a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice the disparity.
 * No fallacy, no circular logic. (If you assume that a typical reader goes to an article for its content, they why oh why would "the disparity" occur or pop out to them, when Hillary's sig appropriately fits its available space, and Trump's sig appropriately fits its available space? I can't imagine that happening even once for typical/casual reader. If the fallacy is assuming all readers are typical/casual, I didn't make that assumption.) IHTS (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by IHTS, however, a claim can be made that at least some readers are going to notice when a sig doesn't fit its assigned space. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space. (Things like that are instinctive, basic psychology/brain evolution. Noticing things out of place/ill-fitting helped our survival.) IHTS (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apt and well-phrased, IHTS. Technically, the disruption of a regular pattern triggers a P wave with a 75 ms delay (or something along those lines).
 * Try scrolling down the infobox using the "Mobile sidebar preview" gadget. Do you notice any pattern disruptions that don't appear in the normal view? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx (was unaware of that gadget, and I don't have iPhone, so looks useful). It came up okay, but I'm not sure what you're driving at. (There was less text per line re infobox text lines compared to normal view, and the sig looks the same in its space as normal view [although as mentioned above it is still too small for available space IMO].) BTW, "pattern disruption" is a different thing from what I've been talking about (filling available space), I never referred to "patterns" at all here. (Here's a bad analogy. If we are intelligent apes "walking the Earth" and "gettin' into adventures", and saw a lake with lily pads distributed on the surface, we wouldn't notice anything special about one lily pad in the center of the lake. But even if we never saw that lake before, if we came across a different lake with only a single lily pad in the center of it, it would catch attention as "odd" and even probably spur investigation of it ["What's it doing there?"]. Whereas if on the way home to our cave we came across a deep large-screen-TV-sized puddle with a single lily pad in the center, we'd just step on it or maybe pick it and eat it, without anything similarly striking us as "odd". Home Sweet Cave.) (talk)
 * Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads, IHTS. I Saw Eagle Flying Low over Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The artist should have done their research. Miniguns are electrically operated, requiring an external power source. Only in the movies can you walk around with one of those. They should have given him an M60 instead. For realism. Doc   talk  07:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The lily pads weren't "precious", only objects in an analogy. (They might be nutritious however, if the apes were omnivores.) The solution to compromise w/ you is really Randy-inappropriate; the same as if someone told me I can't fill up the gas tank in my Toyota, 'cause it has more capacity than a woman's Volkswagon at the other pump.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right in part, IHTS. My apologies for getting silly with the second-wave feminist nonsense (which I thoroughly rebut at Feminism). However, the solution was not technically a "compromise" between two editors - for you'd proven that my original claim was in error.
 * The question then became, what image size does fit best? Should we focus on the horizontal dimension or the vertical dimension?
 * Only if the vertical is important could an argument be made that current size (as set by JFG) is adequate. I could make a reasonable claim that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit, rather than a subjective compromise between two editors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I think comparing to "similar articles" is off-point - the space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a retangular box containing this sig, width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What if the lilypad was a Lotus, and it was driven by a woman?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wielding a minigun plugged into the lighter socket... --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Point taken, IHTS. But if we apply the "space available" metric alone, Li Bai's signature would need to be nearly five times taller than María del Carmen González-Valerio's.
 * Perhaps we should compare to similar articles with similar signature-character counts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no sigs at either article. (Li Bia img is of an artwork, not a sig.) I recommend that a problem exist, before you attempt to find solution. And you seem permanently stuck on making comparisons. (If you crop a photo, you'll go wrong by chasing other similar photos to compare. Deal w/ what is in front of you.) IHTS (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do, IHTS. You mentioned in particular, "I think most if not all readers would notice the vacuum of unused space." With my Firefox/PC browser magnification set at 100%, the unused space around the signature looks about the same as the average unused space around the other Infobox elements. But to me as a reader, the unused space on a generic HTML document is of trifling importance, because I think of it as varying with device, platform, and magnification. What I notice instead here is the signature height. I see it as overly tall, because it draws my attention away from the data in the preceding elements (which are more helpful to me personally and, most likely, to the average WP reader). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're still *comparing*! Except now, instead of to other similar articles, you're comparing white space surrounding the sig to white space surrounding the infobox line items. It's still an apples-to-oranges compare; the elements are different in kind and available space. Regarding platforms, I'm assuming the relative amount of white space to entire available space remains the same between platforms. Regarding sig size detracting your attention from the infobox line items, that's a non-starter, since the sig is an entirely different construct than the line items (it's a weird or wild artistic shape/construct), that alone will guarantee drawing attention differently from the uniform text line items, regardless what vertical size the sig assumes - it will *always* stand out because it is totally unlike the other items). p.s. This has become tedious. I won't be responding further unless other editors have problems too, other than you. IHTS (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the sig size to more appropriately fill the available space (the approx long-standing size until this edit containing rationale "compare with Hillary Clinton's signature: male competitor's signature taller than female's, by 1.5:1" already discussed above). There is no difference between the judgment involved, from cropping a photo: Each person's sig is like their own little "work of art"; the available space in this infobox is like the "canvas" for said work. Dervorguilla, you seem to be the only editor generating ongoing objections to this. As with the gender-based argument, I don't see all your "comparison" arguments making much sense, or refuting what I've described & explained. Your displeasure has been based on considerations of things outside of the thing (thing + its space) itself. That is not a valid way to look at presenting/displaying a person's sig. A person's sig is not "listed information". It is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona. IHTS (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "A person's sig ... is more like an expression of the subject's personality/persona." Except that it isn't, IHTS. Graphology -- the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting -- purports to be able to evaluate personality characteristics but is generally considered a pseudoscience. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. It's the person's individual expression (unique to themselves). That's why I wrote "expression of their persona". And that's why a sig is used as identity confirmation for a person, just like a thumbprint is. It's their individual identification "stamp". And who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me. (Nitpick some more??? I do think your objective now is to continue this thread without end, grind me down. This thread should have been 1/4 its size, at most. Plus you changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD, not me.) IHTS (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience, that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue for what is essentially an artwork file (subject's unique signature), borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption. With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ("Here is how Trump feels about your precious lilypads"), no wonder I've lost my patience with you. IHTS (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To address your most telling concerns here, IHTS:
 * ...You changed the long-standing sig size, I essentially restored it. It was you who needed to open this thread per WP:BRD...
 * Good point about the "long-standing" sig size. Yes, it's been nearly seven years since sysop Connormah added the image, at upright=0.7. And it stayed that size till I meddled with it.
 * But the binding policy here (as cited at BRD) is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516, explaining, "I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns".


 * ...Who said anything about "evaluat[ing] personality". Not me.
 * I may indeed have misunderstood the point of your argument that the signature "is more like an expression of the subject's personality..." The language about "evaluating personality" is found at Graphology: "the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting [for the purpose of] evaluating personality characteristics [or the like]." (Thence also my claim that such analysis "is generally considered a pseudoscience".)


 * Putting arguments in my mouth, suggesting I'm pushing pseudoscience [or] that I've engaged in fallacy/circular logic, [and] picking on every possible angle to question what is essentially a simple cropping issue ... borders on personal attacks and Talk page disruption.
 * No; rather, you and I have been giving each other some very good reasons for seeing one sig size as better than another. And I feel that I've come to understand your reasons for disagreeing with me (and with JFG).


 * With your original absurd gender-based rationale, and posting link to a mocking fantasy artwork of the subject, and sarcastic mocking of me ... no wonder I've lost my patience with you.
 * I also feel that I've been complying with WP:INDCRIT and that you (easily) understood my responses to your comments.
 * Here are 3 diffs that illustrate why I have trouble believing your claim that I've caused you to lose patience by linking to the "mocking" artwork and so forth.
 * 1. Your own apparently mocking reply ("No, the size of your head.") to Jack Upland's mocking reply to JFG's comment.
 * 2. Your apparently light-hearted reply ("Depends of course how good-looking she is.") to my second light-hearted comment that mentions the artwork.
 * 3. Your unacknowledged removal of your two replies. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Could we solve all this by getting Donald to write with a crayon?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your off-topic graphic mocked the BLP subject, and your associated comment mocked me as editor. I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor, as yours were. And I listed reasons beyond your off-topic mocking posts for losing patience with you. (You seem to dwell on the trivial and off-topic. Duh I wonder why.) ¶ A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px), and your rationale for shrinking the size and reverting me based on sexual equality was so absurd: "male competitor's signature taller than female's". You don't have any consensus to reduce the long-standing sig size. And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring on that basis. No doubt you will continue your BS discussion techniques and out-of-policy reverting, however. You seem pleased to extend this thread and reverting until 6,000 years.) IHTS (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You're making the claim that the off-topic posts you deleted weren't mocking other editors, IHTS.
 * I deleted my own off-topic posts, but in no sense were they mocking of you or any other editor...
 * Yet your "off-topic post" of 10 July 2016 seems to be personally mocking Jack Upland:
 * I changed the size to a middle ground to accomodate both editors' concerns. Peace! — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it related to the size of his hands?--Jack Upland 06:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the size of your head. IHTS 07:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And contrary to WP:REDACT, you've neglected to indicate that two days later you deleted the post and also a second post, to which I'd already replied. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, and wrong. (Upland's post was disruptive snark and deserved a putdown. Your mocking of me was unprompted & undeserved. Your mocking of Trump also did/does not belong here.) I'm having trouble finding anything substantive contributed by you in this thread. Yet you will probably continue extending it. IHTS (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The word, by the way, is minuscule. Not miniscule. Look it up.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx. IHTS (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My edit summary for reducing the sig size was,That sig was too big. Now we need someone who knows how to move the label, "Signature," over to the left of the infobox. This should look like the sig in Hillary Clinton's infobox. IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page. My remark that it should look like Clinton's meant it should look balanced in relation to the rest of the infobox like hers does.
 * I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page.
 * CONCRETE SUGGESTION for improvement of article and end of debate: change the template so the space for the sig is smaller.
 * Compare (yes, compare!) how Trump's sig is more conspicuous on the page that John Hancock's. Doesn't look right; doesn't make sense; can't find precedent or reason to make it so conspicuous. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. (The two infobox templates are different and provide different available spaces.) Whether that's a problem or not, I doubt this is the proper venue to discuss it. Oh and I did not "restore the larger signature"; the size was blown up to incredible size due to markup error, I simply corrected my earlier markup error. IHTS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * YoPienso's claim seems legitimate, IHTS. He's saying that your edit "restores the larger signature". Most people here would likely understand "larger" as meaning the larger of the two things that were the subjects of the preceding discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, go look at my diffs at the WP:EWN incident you opened. (Actually click on them, and look at the article effects.) And p.s., there is obviously a disconnect between the template:Infobox person doc, and the actual default siz size which has been long-lasting in this article, and against which you've never presented a single cogent argument why something is wrong with. IHTS (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the relevant diffs before I made the report, IHTS. And I think YoPienso's comment speaks for itself. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent consensus
Compilation of most relevant passages from discussion above


 * Trump's sig size [80px] in the infobox is minuscule... I increased it a moderate amount [to 130px] (it could even go bigger than I made it per the space available for it, probably should)...
 * ...[Readers] will ... notice when a sig size doesn't appropriately fill/occupy the space assigned to it... IHTS 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the size to a middle ground [110px] to accommodate both editors' concerns.... — JFG 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JFG. (I think .5 [110px] is still small for the available space, but at least it's better [than 80px].) IHTS 07:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... I could make a reasonable claim that that it's a bit too high, based on the average em-height of signatures in similar articles. So perhaps we could understand upright=0.5 as a geometric compromise between vertical and horizontal fit... --Dervorguilla 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...The space available each article infobox provides s/ be the guide. For a rectangular box ... width expands faster (more units) per increase in height. So IMO height greater than .5 is better (because more width is better). IHTS 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the sig size [from 110px to 170px] to more appropriately fill the available space... IHTS 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...The binding policy here ... is actually WP:CON: "Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." And JFG clearly implemented Consensus policy at rev 729145516...
 * ...A "compromise" sig size isn't logically appropriate, since you've never offered or stuck with any rationale for shrinking the long-standing size (which is also the template:Infobox person default size for signature_size parm, 150px)... And no one contributing to the thread has objected to the long-standing sig size. (Am restoring [from 110px] on that basis...) IHTS 23:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * *My edit summary for reducing the sig size [to 110px] was, That sig was too big... IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, no, read the Talk page; the infobox at Hillary Clinton is a different template, providing a different available space; your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges). I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox, i.e., in the context of this page...
 * *I think the real problem is the fact that the word "Signature" is center-aligned. That's what creates so much white space that IHTS feels should be filled. I feel filling that space makes the sig oversized in the context of the page... YoPienso 08:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...(The two infobox templates [Infobox person & Infobox officeholder] ... provide different available spaces.)... IHTS 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Compilation of most relevant passages from a Comments section elsewhere


 * User Yopienso's edit [from 220px to 110px] was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more. User JFG did not offer any opinion on signature size, he/she only took the median between an inappropriately minuscule size [80px] ... and the long-standing template:Infobox person default sig size [150px]... IHTS 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – ...I do feel that the "0.5" [110px] signature size looks appropriate given this infobox format and the shape of this particular signature... JFG talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

___

JFG, Dervorguilla, and YoPienso currently appear to support the 110px compromise signature size of 10 July 2016 (and oppose an 80px, 130px, or 150px size).

IHTS currently appears to support an 150px size (and oppose an 80px, 110px, or 130px size).

Apparent consensus size (current): 110px. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your "apparent consensus" is a fake and fabricated one. Your shrinking preference was first based on an absurd "gender equality" argument, which you have now switched to "My "too big" means in relation to the rest of the infobox", when I've made it clear numerous times the available space provided by the infobox for signature is a different and larger space than other infobox items. (So apples-and-oranges comparison, invalidating your preference for "compromising". JFG offered no rationale for reducing the sig size from the long-standing sig size other than "to compromise", and I explained how compromise with a size with invalid "gender equality" reduction rationale makes no sense. He/she only changed their rationale after personally insulting me then getting flak back for it. Yopienso corrected my markup error, then offered thoughts about the differences between the different infobox templates as source of different available signature sizes, and suggested a discussion about template modification for all WP articles that belongs elsewhere. His is a different discussion input than you are attempting to distort here for your own POV purpose to shrink the Donald Trump signature without cause. There is nothing wrong with the current long-standing default signature size, and no editor (NO EDITOR!) has given any reason why the current size is bad or wrong or inappropriate, other than your apples-and-oranges invalid comparison reason. IHTS (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the template used on Barack Obama's page. It's the one I'm most familiar with and keeps the signature proportionate to the rest of the infobox. My reason for thinking the current size is bad or wrong or inappropriate is precisely that: the size of the signature is disproportionate to the rest of the infobox. I was unaware we have so many different infobox templates for people, probably since I don't pay a lot of attention to the BLPs of celebrities, being more interested in politicians. YoPienso (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "the template used on Barack Obama's page [...] keeps the signature proportionate to the rest of the infobox". And the template used on Trump's page doesn't. I agree. As already mentioned, the different templates provide different available spaces for sig, and the response of shrinking the long-standing default size to artificially "equalize" sig sizes when a different available space exists, is artificial and equivalent to forcing square peg in round hole. Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Probably the current template should stand unless Trump becomes the POTUS, in which case we would swap it out for the template used for other PsOTUS. YoPienso (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow during all this drama, the signature lost its extra markup and came to be autosized by the template. I think that's fine and all editors involved should drop the stick and enjoy the sunshine. — JFG talk 22:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't been paying attention. I restored the long-standing markup here, which was overridden here, which override was reverted here. All was included in discussion. p.s. Of course it looks fine, and thx for that. Only user Dervorguilla has been opposing, w/o cause. IHTS (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, this happened five days after my only edit, I was indeed not following what happened to the page at that point. Glad this looks settled now. — JFG talk 19:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. IHTS (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)