Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 23

Neutrality tag in Campaign section
Can someone please point me to the discussion associated with the POV tag here? ThanksCFredkin (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag was added by with the summary: "This section is supposed to be a summary of the related main article." I don't believe there was any discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If no such discussion was initiated by the 'tagger" the tag can, and should, be removed. Buster Seven   Talk  22:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It needs discussion first. And, a chance to sort the problem so a tag isn't even needed. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What problem? Cwobeel never identified what the problem is, and never started a discussion. IMO we should just remove the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's no discussion, there should be no tag., any comment? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tag has been removed. Buster Seven   Talk  15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am putting it back. The section does not come close to being a summary of the main article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anybody reading that section may be very surprised to find no mention of the countless controversies of the Trump campaign. For example, there is a sentence referring to the FBI Director's testimony as the reason of a drop in Clinton's poll numbers, but there is no mention of the Khan family debacle or the many other self-inflicted controversies as the reason for his abysmal polling post convention. POV tag needs to remain there until this is addressed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Once we have a good summary of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 in this article, the POV tag can be removed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly about the necessity to paraphrase the "Controversies" section of Trump's campaign in his biography article, why don't you just do it and see if it sticks? Adding a tag and expecting other editors to do the job is poor Wikipedian practice. Especially right after 6 different editors questioned the need for such a tag. — JFG talk 05:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason the tag was removed was because ]] was supposed to start a discussion to fix the problem and never did. Is this the discussion? Please clearly state the problem with a bit more specificity than Once we have a good summary of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 in this article, the POV tag can be removed. so your fellow a editors can know what to fix.  Buster Seven   Talk  05:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How hard is it to understand? Per WP:SUMMARY, sub articles need to be properly summarized in main articles. As it stands, this section is not a NPOV summary of the main article, thus the tag. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:SOFIXIT — JFG talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and Again, WP:SOFIXIT — Buster Seven   Talk  05:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT (which redirects to WP:Be bold) is a way of encouraging other editors, not a way to admonish them for not editing one way or another. It is never an excuse to remove a tag. Cwobeel has belatedly identified an issue, and as no one seems to disagree with them it seems there is a consensus of one that the problem exists and should be fixed. By removing the tag we are sweeping this problem under the rug. I support re-adding the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree. But, the tagging of articles is easy. The addition of information into an article like this is not. You're right about the rug. It is a lumpy bumpy thing and this should have been handle differently; both by the tagger and those of us responding to the tag. Buster Seven   Talk  18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Race discrimination suits
Why, in the legal issues section, is there no mention of the various suits for racial discrimination in the 60s and 70s? Most notable are the ones filed by the Federal Government. Sbrianhicks (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. The article would benefit if you added some information. Buster Seven   Talk  20:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the issue was thoroughly discussed:
 * NYT: Is Donald Trump a Racist?
 * Legal Affairs of Donald Trump
 * Housing discrimination case
 * Accusations of racism
 * A well-informed compromise text resulted:
 * He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments, rather than merely screening out people based on low income as the Trumps stated. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League.


 * And most of the editors felt their legitimate concerns had been addressed, per WP:CON. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of 2016 campaign section
The following was inserted recently, reverted, and re-inserted: Trump's platform has frequently changed throughout his campaign trail.[296] Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign.[297] Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing to racism.[298] Trump's most polarizing and widely reported statements have been about issues of immigration and border security, especially his proposed deportation of all illegal immigrants, the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, and his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.".[299][300][301][302] This BLP had a tag on it earlier this month for being too long, so it was substantially shortened. If it is substantially lengthened again, I think the added material ought to be clearly useful and clearly written, which this quoted material is not. And, as stated atop this talk page, "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." So, it's puzzling to me why this was jammed back into this article without any attempt to gain consensus. Anyway, the sentence "Trump's platform has frequently changed throughout his campaign trail" is a weirdly-written sentence, as "his campaign" does not need the added word "trail". The content of this sentence is also completely redundant to the intro of the political positions section ("He has described his political positions in various and often contradictory ways over time.[236][329] Trump himself says 'Ihave evolved on many issues. There are some issues that are very much the same, I've been constant on many issues. But I have evolved on certain issues.'[330] PolitiFact wrote that it is difficult to determine Trump's stance on issues, given his frequent changes in position and 'his penchant for using confusing, vague and even contradictory language'[331]"). The sentence "Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign.[297]" is likewise very redundant to material already in the BLP (e.g. "His campaign emphasizes American patriotism, with a disdain for what he refers to as political correctness.[291] [292]"). I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there is no consensus for this new material in the BLP, so I will revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When CFredkin removed that paragraph - with the edit summary "Rm recently added content - much of the content is already mentioned in the body of the article and the reference to "racism" is undue for this BLP. Per discretionary sanctions, pls seek firm consensus before restoring." - he did more than revert the recent changes. He also removed a pre-existing paragraph which summarized Trump's major positions. I was about to restore that pre-existing paragraph, but then I saw that most of the information is repeated in more detail in the "Political positions" section. So I agree it is redundant to have it in the "2016 campaign" section and I support its removal. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's claim about president's grandmother
For a long time (more than a month) this article said "Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case".

That was removed today by a bold edit without prior talk page discussion.

I objected at the talk page: "Regarding his [Trump's] statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so."

No one replied, so I restored the same basic material, though edited somewhat: "a claim that others had previously made based upon an incomplete court transcript of what the grandmother said."

This edit of mine was then reverted, and the material was removed, with edit summary "i don't see consensus on talk for restoring this text".

I have several objections to the last removal: (1) no one replied at the talk page when I said the material should be restored; (2) it's rarely appropriate to remove content with a bare assertion of "no consensus" without giving any substantive reason, see WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"; (3) longstanding content like this requires a consensus for removal, not consensus for restoration per discussion at Melanie's talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this addressed to me or is it about one of CFredkin's edits? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think CFredkin was involved in this. My objection is to this removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed that sentence because it added too much detail with no biographical value. The point is that Trump's statement about Obama's grandmother was wrong. There is no benefit to describing in depth how this fallacy arose before Trump repeated it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think there is value in saying that he repeated it instead of made it up himself?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article neither says nor implies that Trump made it up himself. There would be more value in saying that the falsehood was debunked long before Trump repeated it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * something like that might work. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I also agree with 's proposal.- MrX 12:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
I propose a partial rewrite of that section, as below. I have simply left out the stuff about his grandmother as TMI (Trump didn't invent that anyhow, he was just repeating conspiracy-buff claims). I added his often-touted claim that he "sent investigators to Hawaii". And in addition to "he rarely mentioned it again" I believe we should add that when he is asked about it, he defends raising the issue to this day. Here is my proposal to replace the current "birther" paragraph which is in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section of this article. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He repeatedly demanded that Obama show his birth certificate (Obama had already released his birth certificate in 2008, but "birthers" demanded a more detailed document called the "long form birth certificate") and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here." Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying "They cannot believe what they are finding"; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii. In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate. Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out". He rarely mentioned the matter again, although he continued to defend his pursuit of the issue when asked. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said, "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it". Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records.


 * It could use some tweaks here and there, but overall it's a major improvement so I support implementing this now and we can make further edits later. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll give it until tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you have both been tweaking this paragraph in the article. Would you be OK with replacing it with this version? --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No; it's a good-faith edit, but not a particularly good edit. To illustrate: Huffington Post and Salon do at first look like reputable sources. But a more experienced contributor would likely hesitate to use them in an ideologically contentious article. Why not substitute a more mainstream source?
 * Also, three very mainstream sources -- BBC News, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal -- actually contradict the NYTimes article's statement that the subject "rarely mentioned the matter again".  (And the subject continues to openly brag in his biography page that he "single-handedly forced" Obama to release the document. )
 * As one of the non-sysop contributors here, I ought to tell you, MelanieN, that I think we're capable of dealing with this issue on our own. Before you spend additional time spelling out your views, could you address a more administrative-level question? I need to find out whether there's a guideline somewhere about reverting "longstanding" material.
 * If you come up with a definitive answer, you'll help contributors resolve disputes not just here but throughout Wikipedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree that HuffPost and Salon aren't the most reliable sources out there, but they're used throughout Wikipedia and the community has consistently considered them sufficiently reliable in response to many, many challenges. I do not think it's fair for you to continue making these sorts of objections without recommending alternate sources. I asked you for this twice in another discussion (here, here) and you have ignored me. Please engage in consensus building, not gridlock. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Time, Wall Street Journal, BBC News. Posted 06:54, 25 August 2016. BBC News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal. Posted 09:15, 25 August 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree that HuffPost and Salon aren't the most reliable sources out there, but they're used throughout Wikipedia and the community has consistently considered them sufficiently reliable in response to many, many challenges. I do not think it's fair for you to continue making these sorts of objections without recommending alternate sources. I asked you for this twice in another discussion (here, here) and you have ignored me. Please engage in consensus building, not gridlock. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Time, Wall Street Journal, BBC News. Posted 06:54, 25 August 2016. BBC News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal. Posted 09:15, 25 August 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dervorguilla, I think you know that I am here as an ordinary editor and have been actively participating for months. So I am as entitled as anyone to propose wording. I appreciate your constructive criticism of this proposal, and I will work on incorporating your suggestions into my draft. As for the definition of "longstanding", I know that you have seen the discussion about it on my talk page, where it became clear that there is no firm definition. I was a "learner" myself at that discussion, where more experienced admins explained that the wording of DS is meant to stabilize the article and to favor the status quo - so that a bold edit which removes longstanding material may be considered as "contentious" and can be challenged by reverting. One admin at that discussion suggested that something which has been in a very active article for a month or six weeks could be considered as "longstanding". But as I said, I am speaking here as an ordinary editor, not an admin, and am merely quoting what others have said. --MelanieN (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty good, but the parenthetical should be revised into a sentence. I also think there should be some mention of Trump incorrectly stating that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya.  Makes valid point about using better source.- MrX 12:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. How about these changes?
 * I can leave out the Salon source. There are already other links that cover the information. I will also leave out the Politico source, it's redundant. I don't see a problem with the Huffpost source, but I can replace it with a NYT link if you want.
 * I was going to leave out the grandmother as TMI, but if consensus is to include it, how about a single sentence, with a source that includes both his assertion and the debunking? Dr.Fleischman's PolitiFact source does both very nicely. Also a good suggestion to rewrite the information about Obama's earlier release of his birth certificate so it isn't parenthetical. How about something like this:
 * Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well. He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.
 * Dervorguilla, your three references all date from April 2011; they don't disprove that he "rarely mentioned the matter again", i.e., after March-April 2011. How about this:
 * Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his biography, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it.

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit long. I'm wondering if one of Trump's quotes could/should be trimmed.CFredkin (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds good to me.- MrX 16:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in rural Maine for a few days so won't say much. I am skeptical about this article saying Trump "revived" the issue, since it was already raging just before he got involved.  See Wikipedia's birther article from 28 February 2011 just before he got involved (I see "2011" appearing 58 times on that archived page).  I also think this material is a tad long, and since there appears to be no evidence that he didn't send reps to Hawaii I'd zap the stuff about it ("Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying 'They cannot believe what they are finding'; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii").  Back in April 2011, Salon Magazine stated "If media organizations must report Trump’s claim about sending investigators to Hawaii, they should make it very clear that he has offered no evidence".  I don't think we "must" report this claim by Trump; why report stuff if there's no evidence either way?  Postscript:  Per WP:Preserve, the investigator info would be more appropriate at []. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tentatively agree with the preceding three comments, but they shouldn't hold up implementing Melanie's proposal in the article. It's more efficient to let the iterative BRD process work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall reading somewhere ("Is it in that stack of magazines over there?") that the Bureau of Records in Hawaii had verified that "Not a single representative of Donald Trumps has come forward to investigate our records". Not sure how to Google the right question to find the source but it was reliable... Buster Seven   Talk  18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it. NYT. The very last sentence states: Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health. Buster Seven   Talk  07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * About "revived", most sources indicate that it was Trump's "megaphone" that took this from an under-the-radar, conspiracy-buff issue to a front page issue. But I mainly wanted to make clear that he did not invent this stuff, just took existing claims and brought them to prominence, so we could use a different word than "revived". I do think we should include his repeated claim that he sent representatives to Hawaii (we could leave out "and you won't believe what they're finding!") along with the fact that there's no evidence he actually did so (if he did send them, they seem to have left no traces in Hawaii and produced no information that Trump ever used). I will go ahead and post the paragraph with the changes already indicated. Thanks, all, for your input. I have always found it's better to hammer out a consensus wording on the talk page rather than to tweak and revert each other at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I did cut or paraphrase some of the Trump quotes as CFredkin suggested. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision added to the article 8-25-16
This version of the "birther" paragraph, based on the above discussion, was added to the article on 8-25-16:


 * For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well. He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Trump claimed he had sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but there is no evidence that he actually did so. In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate. Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out". Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his online biography, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said he didn't know and didn't "want to get into it". Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records.

That addition was reverted, so this is what is in the article now:
 * For six weeks in Spring 2011, Trump repeatedly and publicly questioned President Barack Obama's citizenship and thus joined the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. In an interview on The Today Show, Trump incorrectly stated that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya. Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records, plus release of a long form birth certificate.  In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form. Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role, and then rarely mentioned the matter again. When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".

Please discuss any suggested changes, or your preference for one version or the other, in the section below. MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition was reverted; further discussion needed

 * I oppose per User:Anythingyouwant's (and User:DrFleischman's) unaddressed concerns and for contradiction and confusion. The independent clause ("he brags about it in his online biography") contradicts the subordinate clause ("he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * MelanieN: Please establish an actual consensus before making a disputed edit. You seem to be claiming here that you've identified a "consensus wording" after giving the other editors 25 hrs for discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, Dervorguilla. I added it because I was being urged (by Dr. Fleischman) to implement it immediately and amend it later. Six people had commented, and I took all of their suggestions, including yours (replacing two sources and rewriting the "rarely" sentence). Anything didn't like the "investigators" sentence but Buster supported it, so I rewrote it but left it in; that can be discussed further, one sentence doesn't need to delay implementation. Please lay out what your additional concerns are, and let's establish a clearer consensus so we can restore this version (or are you suggesting that the previous version, which you restored to the article, is preferable?). Specifically, what were the unaddressed concerns of User:Anythingyouwant and User:DrFleischman? Let's fix them. As for the "not mentioned again" sentence which you found contradictory, IMO "although" and "rarely" in the subordinate clause do set up the sentence to describe the times when he HAS brought it up again. But how would you suggest the sentence should read so as not to be contradictory? (For reference, the sentence I proposed is "Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his online biography,[275] and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it." Do others find this to be contradictory?) BTW I did hesitate over the word "brags" and would welcome a more neutral suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we have consensus. If doesn't like something in the re-write then they can change it in the article space. But reverting the whole thing saying there's no consensus is obstructionist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's been quite a bit of compromise on the wording., what is your specific remaining concern(s) that you believe must be addressed before implementing this edit? How about if we remove the phrase "he brags about it in his online biography,[275]", which is original research anyway and the apparent source of concern about contradiction? - MrX 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to avoid "he brags": Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, this is still mentioned in his online biography. — JFG talk 17:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JFG. I will make the change. Do you have an opinion about whether you prefer the revised paragraph that was recently added and deleted, or the original version which is in the article now? --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't paid attention before, but I'm happy to weigh in. Your proposed version above flows well and sounds much easier to understand from a reader's standpoint. It's still a bit overloaded with direct transcripts from Trump's rambling speech style, which is harder to follow in writing than when listening, so I'd advise further summarizing what he said rather than quoting him verbatim. — JFG talk 17:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Concretely, I suggest:
 * replacing and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here." with and expressed doubts about his place of birth.
 * keeping the direct quote In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."
 * replacing the last rather unreadable 2015 direct quote with When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion.
 * Regards, — JFG talk 17:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'm sorry, I didn't make clear what version I was talking about. You were looking at my original proposal, before I modified it according to everybody's suggestions. You are right about the quotes, and in fact they already have been cut or paraphrased as you suggest. I'll put the article's original version of the "birther" paragraph (that is the version currently in the article), and the proposed revision (which was added and reverted), on this page right above this discussion, so people can see what we are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; it's easy to get confused with these live mega-threads… So, here's what I would suggest, based on your draft above (proposed changes bolded, removals struck out). — JFG talk 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see this as an improvement over the current wording.CFredkin (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JFG. I think most of these changes are positive and I will be happy to do them (unless people disagree). However, I don't think "opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion" is an improvement over "said he didn't know and didn't "want to get into it"". 0'-D We could remove the quotes from "didn't want to get into it" if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "To this day..." doesn't seem like encyclopedic language. Also, are there reliable secondary sources that reference the fact that the birther thing appears in Trump's web site?CFredkin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't found one yet, CFredkin.
 * I agree about the language not being encyclopedic. MOS:DATED says editors usually avoid using phrases like to date. To me, the phrase "to this date" sounds even less appropriate. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the previously proposed language ("this is still mentioned in his online biography") more encyclopedic or more to your liking? About the reference, it is the website itself. That is a primary source; does that make it unacceptable? If we can't find a third party source that mentions this, are you recommending we should leave out the "biography" part of the sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * JFG: I can't tell which source you're using to support the information that someone debunked the erroneous claim about what Sarah Obama said. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN: We can use the passage from the Trump Organization website per BLPSELFPUB. Proposed language:
 * By August 2015 he was claiming on his business Biography page that he had "single handedly" compelled the president to release it.
 * (Alternatively, "...that he had 'single handedly forced' the president to release it".)
 * Compare Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., ¶ 14.245 ('Citations of website content'): "As of July 18, 2008, Hefferman was claiming on her Facebook page that ..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., ¶ 14.245 ('Citations of website content'): "As of July 18, 2008, Hefferman was claiming on her Facebook page that ..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * MelanieN: Please delete the language about "a 'birther' demand". The term "birther" isn't in the dictionary. See Merriam-Webster Unabridged and Dictionary.com. Worse, some readers may believe that it is in the dictionary and may misinterpret the quotation marks as scare quotes. So they may well come to think that Wikipedia is trying to smear an opposing candidate.
 * And according to a BBC News Analysis, many people supported that demand. The BBC's North America editor noted:
 * "I ... rushed to find a diner with a TV to watch what the president said. As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many had doubts about the president's birth certificate and wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier."
 * This eminently reputable source says "many people", not "many 'birthers'". (Many journalists and transparency advocates wondered why, too.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, Dervorguilla. 1) The source for the debunking of the grandmother claim is the same as the source for Trump making the claim: Politifact. 2) Re the biography page, I'd rather use "As of" instead of "By", and I don't like the POV word "claim". And I'd rather "his page was saying" instead of "he was saying". How about this: "As of August 2016 his business Biography page was still saying that he had "single handedly forced" the president to release the long form birth certificate." (P.S. We don't need to use an archived 2015 version of the web page; the page still says it.) 3) Although two of the three sources do use the word "birther", in quotes, I agree it is not ideal. The problem is getting three ideas into the article: 1) Obama had released his birth certificate, 2) some people were calling for a long form birth certificate, 3) Trump was repeating that demand. (I don't want to just say "Trump demanded" without the context that others had demanded it before him.) How about these possibilities: "Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,[2] Trump joined in the call for Obama to release a "long form" birth certificate as well." or "Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,[2] some people had been asking for a "long form" birth certificate as well, a demand that Trump echoed." Thoughts? MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed final version
New version taking the latest remarks into account. Replaced "birthers" with "activists", simplified mention of his biography, adding a quote of it, unified citation format and removed a redundant one. Also clarified the question asked of him by Anderson Cooper in 2015, from the transcript.


 * For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, amplifying the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed activists' demand that Obama disclose a "long form" certificate as well. Trump said that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings. He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. When the White House sought to put the matter to rest by releasing Obama's long-form birth certificate, Trump immediately took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it's the right deal." His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when prompted. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 whether Obama was born in the United States, Trump said he didn't know and didn't want to discuss it further. Trump has also called for Obama to release his school records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.

Consensus yet? — JFG talk 16:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me.- MrX 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Does this look like a consensus version, so we could close the matter? — JFG talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Nice work. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my objections remain. I thought people were going to come up with another word for "reviving".  Trump did not revive the controversy in 2011, as it was already going gangbusters.  Amplified perhaps, but not revived.  Also, is there any evidence that Trump did not send investigators?  I think that whole sentence ought to be dropped.  Detectives typically don't wear a sign that says their occupation and employer, after all.  Also, per WP:Claim, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence."  Moreover, please explain why you want to remove that "Trump said he hoped it 'checks out'".  Is that because we believe that Trump hoped the opposite?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, replaced "reviving" with "amplifying" as suggested. Regarding investigators, I have no clue, we are just citing the source, but I agree that the whole sentence could be dropped as this assertion is not particularly notable. Do our fellow editors agree that we could strike this out? For the "I hope it checks out" comment, it looked superfluous to me; the operative statement is that Trump took credit for getting Obama to release the document. — JFG talk 04:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:JFG. I would also change "repeated" to "echoed" because the present language suggests that maybe Trump  is the one that initially made the grandmother claim, then it was debunked, and then he repeated it.  As for Trump's statement that he hopes it checks out, let's suppose for the sake of argument that he was telling the truth; then that would be a really extraordinary statement, indicating that Trump hoped Obama would legitimately remain in office and the nation would be spared a constitutional crisis, which runs counter to the whole narrative that Trump was stooping to birtherism in order to kick Obama out by any dubious means.  So I'd include it for NPOV, and let readers decide if Trump really meant it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We're already using "echoed" in the previous sentence, "repeated" is a fine sysnonym, it's a stretch of the imagination that readers would think he originated the grandmother claim rather than merely repeating it. On the "I hope it checks out" part, I get your point but I still think that's too much detail at this point in the biography; readers who do want more detail can read the sources. — JFG talk 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Reviving" is debatable, but I don't think "amplified" is quite right. As MelanieN put it "About "revived", most sources indicate that it was Trump's "megaphone" that took this from an under-the-radar, conspiracy-buff issue to a front page issue. But I mainly wanted to make clear that he did not invent this stuff, just took existing claims and brought them to prominence, so we could use a different word than "revived"." It might be better to say "exploiting" or "co-opting".- MrX 12:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Amplifying" is exactly what a megaphone does, so it sounds about right to me if we want to take 's comment into account here. — JFG talk 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The sentence should not be dropped. If anything, we should make it clear that Trump repeated his claim that sending investigators to Hawaii, as noted in NYT. Other sources have covered this   so I believe it's noteworthy.- MrX 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MrX, given all the false things that Trump has said, why not use those things instead of this thing about which there's no significant evidence of falsity? Let's put the falsity label on things that are actually known to be false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the proposed text says anything about the claim being false; only that there is not evidence that he actually sent investigators to Hawaii. Let's read what some source says:
 * Trump claimed it's “absolutely unbelievable” what they were finding. Does anyone actually think that if Trump had unbelievable information about Obama that he would not shout it from the rooftops? That's why this is so noteworthy.- MrX 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did any of the sources speculate about what Trump would have said if he had found absolutely unbelievable stuff in his investigation? Such an investigation likely touched upon personal and private information, which would be ample reason to keep it under wraps.  Another reason is that Obama released the form, so there was no longer any need for publicizing private information.  (One piece of privacy-related info was a video recorded in the State of Washington about a transcontinental visit just a few days after Obama's birth by the baby and his mother, and the interviewed friend talks about how Obama's mother didn't even know yet how to change the diaper and the poop got all over and the whole thing was yucky.). Anyway, tons of stuff was published about Trump that's reliably sourced, but we ought to be discerning.  It's transparently partisan to say there's no evidence Trump sent investigators without also saying there's no evidence the other way either (which there isn't AFAIK).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard the baby poop story before, but then again, I don't follow conspiracy theories. We're staring to venture into the OR zone and we probably shouldn't speculate about what happen or should have happened. All we know is that Trump made a claim and didn't follow through. Our sources are pretty consistent about saying this without making any other conclusions. I think the question that remains is one of weight. I've shown roughly a half a dozen sources. Perhaps other editors can weight in about whether they think this material is important or not. I would be OK with changing "...but there is no evidence that he actually did so" to "...but it's unknown whether he actually did so". - MrX 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that we don't actually know he didn't follow through. He could very well have hired some expensive private investigators to go investigate it, engaged in hyperbole about what he thought they would find, then stopped talking about it when they found nothing. Anythingyouwant is making a good point here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I wrote " didn't follow through", I wasn't referring to the investigation; I was referring to the revelation that would have presumably come after finding absolutely unbelievable information.- MrX 14:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but one could argue that he couldn't follow through because the investigators found nothing. I know it's not a very good argument, but Trump is campaigning for president, not writing a work of investigative journalism. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that we don't actually know he didn't follow through. He could very well have hired some expensive private investigators to go investigate it, engaged in hyperbole about what he thought they would find, then stopped talking about it when they found nothing. Anythingyouwant is making a good point here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I wrote " didn't follow through", I wasn't referring to the investigation; I was referring to the revelation that would have presumably come after finding absolutely unbelievable information.- MrX 14:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but one could argue that he couldn't follow through because the investigators found nothing. I know it's not a very good argument, but Trump is campaigning for president, not writing a work of investigative journalism. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, seems there is no consensus to remove this sentence. Adding it back in a slightly altered formulation taking your remarks into account: Trump claimed that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings. This version doesn't try to prove or disprove that he did what he said, we just report that he offered no results (which is true despite his bombastic claim of finding extraordinary stuff), so readers can draw their own conclusions. Is this acceptable? I'd really like to close this now, we're spending too much time discussing the fine details of one single paragraph in a long biography article. Let's keep it as simple as possible (but no simpler). In my opinion, the entire paragraph as massaged above is ready to go into the article. I'll leave it one more day open for comments, then I'll publish it. — JFG talk 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that wording. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the sentence about investigators in the article; he asserted it repeatedly, and boasted that the supposed investigators were finding unbelievable stuff - stuff which for some reason he never used. We also have the Hawaii health department registrar saying they were never contacted by any Trump investigators, which would seem like a basic starting point for any investigation. However, I would not say he "claimed" he had sent them, since "claimed" is a bit NPOV and implies disbelief. A simple "said" would work. I actually prefer the original version saying there is no evidence he sent them, but will accept the "never released any findings" if consensus favors it. (Has any Reliable Source ever put it that way, that he never released any findings? or is it WP:OR? We DO have a reliable source saying that he never provided any evidence that he sent them.) As for the other issues raised by Anythingyouwant, I am fine with replacing "revived" with "amplified" or any other synonym people prefer, and with either "echoed" or "repeated". I have no opinion about "hope it checks out", which may be superfluous; one of the complaints about the original draft was that it contained too many direct quotes from Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From the New York Times The very last sentence states: Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health.  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Allright, JFG, I think it's time to add this to the article. You have pretty well responded to everyone's suggestions. If anyone wants to make further suggestions, they should make them here, and if agreed to they can be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that JFG said above "Alright, seems there is no consensus to remove this sentence...." That is not the appropriate standard.  The real question is whether there is "firm consensus" to insert it.  And likewise whether there is "firm consensus" to remove that Trump hopes the certificate "checks out".  I have no objection paraphrasing the latter instead of quoting.  Can we please see the revised draft?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) RE the "investigators" sentence, we have three peoole (JFG, MrX, and me) who want it in the paragraph in the original version. We have MJolnirPants, who wants it in the article but modified. And we have you, who wants to leave it out. Consensus must be "firm" but it does not have to be unanimous. 2) If the "hope it checks out" bit is all that important to you, I will go along and say it should be included, preferably with the direct quote. (You seem to think that comment provides balance, i.e., makes Trump look like he really does hope it proves Obama was born here; but it can equally or more likely be read as expressing skepticism on the subject, "sure, he gave us a document, but it might be phony".) Anyhow, go ahead and include it and let's get this thing posted. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * makes a good point about the "I hope it checks out" quote, which can be interpreted both ways depending on the reader's opinion of Trump: sincerity or sarcasm. Indeed, going back to the source it's quoted from, their article title says Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders "is it real?" (editorially choosing to emphasize doubt) and in the text we have several verbatim quotes of Trump saying We have to look at it, we have to see is it real, is it proper, what's on it, but I hope it checks out beautifully and It is rather amazing that all the sudden it materializes, but I hope it's the right deal. So, if we must insert a quote, rather than "I hope it checks out" I would suggest using "I hope it's the right deal", which still leaves the reader free to interpret it as sincere relief or lingering doubt, but is a bit less colloquial. I have amended the proposed paragraph accordingly, and will publish it now. — JFG talk 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * JFG said about the investigator sentence: "I agree that the whole sentence could be dropped as this assertion is not particularly notable". MJolnirPants said, "Anythingyouwant is making a good point here".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think the sentence is superfluous but considering other editors' remarks I'm happy to keep it in the shortened and neutral form as amended after discussion. In the same spirit, taking your concerns into account, I am adding back a direct Trump quote expressing hope that Obama's certificate was legit. — JFG talk 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Does Trump have a new immigration stance?
, etc. How are we gonna deal with that? Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oy. But fortunately we don't have to do anything yet, since at this point Trump is merely weighing changing his stance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As usual it's impossible to tease out what he really means by these hints, so we should hold off. Interesting side note: Trump has cancelled three appearances this week. They were supposed to be all about laying out or clarifying his new (?) policy on immigration; in fact this was supposed to be "immigration week". The campaign has not explained why they called off the appearances, but one possible reason is that he and his campaign advisors have not agreed what his immigration policy should be. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post something about Trump's Stunning Flip-Flop on Immigration, or business as usual. It absolutely should be added, and I don't think we need to wait an indefinite period for details which may or may not ever emerge. It already has historical significance, if for no other reason than the ambiguity about his actual position this close to the election.- MrX 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Unlikely that he knows his position at the moment. But, it makes no sense for the article to say: "Day 1 of my presidency, illegal immigrants are getting out and getting out fast" when his position appears to be an unknown. There should, at least, be a follow-up statement that his position is in flux. Objective3000 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't even know if it is in flux. His campaign manager says his position is "to be determined", suggesting flux. Trump himself says "I'm not flip flopping," suggesting no flux. MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not flipflopping. But he knows America is not a dictatorship. There are checks and balances and he'll have to govern with Congress, the Senate and the judiciary. That's all he's been saying. If anything, he has said he would work with the courts, proving that he wants to honor the constitution.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you speak for him? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "He hasn't changed his position on immigration. He's changed the words that he is saying." You know, the words about his position. This waffling doesn't belong on Trump's bio page, at least not yet. MrX is right about its importance, though, and I believe it should already be on the campaign page. When he and his team decide what he's proposing, we can clarify. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just the other day Trump announced his revision of his revision of his original Immigration Policy. At the thread "Immigration policies" all the sources are from June. Would a re-write of the section be better than just adding each revision as it is announced? (which hasn't happened as of yet) Or just change the section each time? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet. All we could say is that he may be waffling, or then again maybe he isn't. When he comes out with an actual policy, something he will stand behind and stick to, we should revise it then. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wishful thinking that. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe after tonight? --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on what I'm seeing on Twitter, there is no change in policy or softening. Ann Coulter is happy. She can still pimp out that book. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)