Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 43

Rephrasing
The lead says: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton." I plan to rephrase slightly: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes versus Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than she did."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that's an improvement? I don't. "versus Hillary Clinton" is really awkward. "a majority of electoral college votes" says all that needs to be said. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is less awkward: "Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes."  I think this is the best way to introduce Clinton in the lead, instead of via a legally irrelevant factoid about the popular vote.  The lead would then say "He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than she did."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the factoid about popular vote shouldn't be the way to introduce Hillary Clinton into Donald Trump's bio; now that the electoral hysteria has died down, we can leave this to the election page itself, and to Clinton's bio because that is her achievement. Also, every US president has by definition gained a majority of the Electoral College votes (nitpicking about a dead President-elect aside), there is nothing unusual about this and it frankly looks awkward to spell it out (as if WP had to justify the legitimacy of the electoral process). What is unusual is that his victory was a surprise (the article has lots of detail supporting this, and the lead should summarize the article). So my proposal would be simply: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Thoughts? — JFG talk 09:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, that seems fine to me. We can use that sentence instead of "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton."  I support leaving in (at least for now) the brief statement later in the lead about Trump being the fourth president elected with less than a plurality because that's more about him than her.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Definitely an improvement JFG. I disagree about the "fourth president with less than a plurality" bit. It reads like a left-handed compliment. The bigger story is that he is the 5th person to not hold elected office before being elected to the presidency. That's far more relevant. The popular vote is not how America elects presidents. The bit about the popular vote can be in the election section, but it does not belong in the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead says, he's "the first without prior military or governmental service", which seems adequate to me, and I don't think the lead has to separately address how many presidents have lacked elective experience. In any event, the number five is incorrect (the correct number is seven in view of Washington, Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree. In fact, Trump himself disagrees - he, in fact, called for a revolution when he (mistakenly!) believed Obama hadn't won the popular vote?! The "fourth president with less than a plurality" is clearly more significant than "the fifth person to not hold elected office". Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The popular vote is not how America elects presidents. In the 2000 Bush-Gore election, it came down to the state of Florida, not because the votes there would put Gore further over the top in the popular vote, but because it would determine the one with the needed electoral college votes. It is not of due weight. However, electing a man to the office of the Presidency without having first held any elective office, for only the 5th time in America's history, is relevant, and has due weight. On the call for a revolution, you'll need reliable sources. Also, the wesal phrase, 'governmental service,' does not necessarily mean elected office. An Ambassador is not an elected office. An cabinet secretary is not an elected office. They've not run for any office. They are appointed. A supreme court judge is not elected either. But a senator or congressman, or mayor, governor, or even city councilman, is elected to office. SW3 5DL (talk9, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, the number five is incorrect (the correct number is six in view of Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Taft was appointed to a judgeship and then had to run for office to be reelected. He also held a cabinet position which was not an elected post, but still a government position, unlike Trump who has held no elected office, government post, or military position. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I did not know that about Taft.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I like this proposal: "Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than she did." --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec)What about "Trump defeated blah blah blah. . .by winning a majority of the electoral college votes, 306 to 232, while Clinton won the popular vote by XX% to Trump's XX%." I think readers are going to want to see numbers. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Needs a comma after "2016" per MOS. There's my contribution to this debate. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  21:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this goes down the slippery slope of election stats again. This is Trump's bio. He won this election, that's enough for the lead, let's keep it simple. Details are one click away. — JFG talk 00:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, what about, "Trump won the majority of the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency. Clinton won the popular vote. " SW3 5DL (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support MelanieN's proposal. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Benchmarking
How do we treat other presidents' electoral victories in the lead section of their biographies? Of 13 presidents and 21 elections, the victory is either mentioned neutrally (9 cases), as a close call (3 cases), or as a landslide (6 cases). Only Carter gets a mention of the EC votes. Three re-elections are not mentioned at all. In this historical context, Trump's election is neither close nor a landslide, therefore best described neutrally in terms of magnitude of the vote. The "surprise" qualifier is justified by unanimous RS coverage, by supporters and opponents alike. — JFG talk 01:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Franklin D. Roosevelt: During the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, Roosevelt defeated incumbent Republican president Herbert Hoover in a landslide to win the presidency. […] His support for the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 added to his popularity, helping him win re-election by a landslide in 1936. […] No mention of his third and fourth terms.
 * Harry S. Truman: Truman was able to rally these groups of supporters during the 1948 presidential election and win election to a presidential term in his own right.
 * Dwight D. Eisenhower: He won in a landslide, defeating Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson and temporarily upending the New Deal Coalition. […] No mention of his second term.
 * John F. Kennedy: Kennedy defeated Vice President, and Republican candidate, Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. Presidential Election.
 * Lyndon B. Johnson: He ran for a full term in the 1964 election, winning by a landslide over Republican opponent Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.
 * Richard Nixon: In 1968, he ran for the presidency again and was elected by defeating incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey. […] He was reelected in one of the largest electoral landslides in U.S. history in 1972, when he defeated George McGovern.
 * Gerald Ford: (Never elected) […] He narrowly lost the presidential election to the Democratic challenger, then-former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, on November 2.
 * Jimmy Carter: He was elected President in 1976, defeating incumbent President Gerald Ford in a relatively close election; the Electoral College margin of 57 votes was the closest at that time since 1916.
 * Ronald Reagan: He twice ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency in 1968 and 1976; four years later, he easily won the nomination outright, becoming the oldest elected U.S. president up to that time, defeating incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980. […] During his re-election bid, Reagan campaigned on the notion that it was "Morning in America", winning a landslide in 1984 with the largest electoral college victory in history.
 * George H. W. Bush: In 1988, Bush ran a successful campaign to succeed Reagan as President, defeating Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis.
 * Bill Clinton: Clinton was elected President in 1992, defeating incumbent George H. W. Bush. […] Two years later, in 1996, Clinton became the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to be elected to a second term.
 * George W. Bush: He was elected president in 2000 after a close and controversial election against Al Gore, becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent. […] Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, in another relatively close election.
 * Barack Obama: He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. […] Obama was re-elected president in November 2012, defeating Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2013.
 * Donald Trump (current): Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 by gaining a majority of electoral college votes. He received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
 * Donald Trump (proposed): Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
 * "Surprise" (or "unexpected") is possible, but the electoral college popular vote (dang it, I keep doing this! Sorry.)  also needs to be mentioned. It is mentioned in the lede in the George W. Bush article; that was the only time in your sample that it happened, so that looks to me like 100% inclusion. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What about, "Trump won the majority of the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency. Clinton won the popular vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SW3 5DL: In earlier discussions I believe we decided it was not appropriate to say that anyone "won" or "lost" the popular vote (even though reliable sources often do). The popular vote is not an actual contest with a winner and a loser. The appropriate wording would be some variation of "got a higher percentage of the popular vote", "received a smaller share of the popular vote", etc. - with no numbers in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can understand that for the popular vote because a candidate can't win the presidency with it. "He received fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton." "smaller share" sounds awkward to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "received fewer popular votes" sounds fine to me. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm flexible on most of this area, but not language. "Popular vote" is not a countable noun. One can't cast a popular vote. There is only one popular vote, the popular vote. Thus, there can't be "fewer popular votes". I believe that's why the "smaller share" thing came about. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support the way this stuff is presented in the lead right now, including that it was a "surprise" win, and including that Pres.-elect Trump is "the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks like an acceptable version for all participants. Shall we call it consensus? — JFG talk 20:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which looks acceptable? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The "current as of this comment" version of the whole paragraph is:
 * Calling for consensus on this. — JFG talk 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's very concise and informative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks OK to me. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection (aside from preferring "opponent" to "rival"), but I wonder how durable the consensus will be in this unstructured format with maybe 5 or 6 particpants at best. It would supersede consensus #4 and reinforce #8? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that #4 is really well-supported by the attached links (e.g. neither linked section uses the wording "smaller share"). Anyway, if you'd like an RFC then I'd have no objection, but it doesn't seem necessary to me.  Both of the links are to Archive 37, which doesn't seem to show a previous RFC; what it does seem to show is a survey about modifying a version of this stuff in a particular way, and consensus against modifying was later assumed to mean consensus for the version without modification (I'm not sure that assumption was correct). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RfC doesn't seem necessary to me, either, but RfC is not the only way to get more structure and participation. Bulleted !voting provides structure; a heading clearly identifying it as a poll (preferably at the bottom of the TOC) attracts participants. I'm still not clear what you would do with #4. Options are to keep it or strike it with a note. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay by me if you set it up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as an "I don't know" as to #4. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus #4 was attained as a compromise position when the debate was raging about the significance of electoral college vs popular vote and some editors insisted that Hillary Clinton had "won" something. Then we had the recounts and the faithless electors debacles. This is hopefully water under the bridge by now, so that the simpler phrasing here can supersede consensus #4. Benchmarking with prior presidents adds weight to the new formulation. Actually, we should keep the part of consensus #4 that mandates not to include election stats, because that received near-unanimous consensus in one of the linked discussions; the other discussion cited in #4 was much less clear-cut, and can be dropped now. Consensus #8 can be cited as a prior discussion supporting the amended phrasing here. In summary, we would have:
 * 4. Do not quote numbers about the election result in the lead (EC votes, popular vote, states won, percentages, …) (link)
 * 8. Keep the exact wording of the paragraph mentioning Trump's age, wealth, and lack of prior public service. (link 1, link 2, link 3)
 * 8. Keep the exact wording of the paragraph mentioning Trump's age, wealth, and lack of prior public service. (link 1, link 2, link 3)


 * Agree? — JFG talk 08:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Willing to try it, although I feel things getting messy, consensuses becoming less easily "verifiable", reducing the efficacy of the list. Probably unavoidable. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with it so long as it includes 'elective office' as in "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, or elective office, and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote." Elected office is not the same as governmental service as they could be a cabinet post or Ambassadorship. He's never held elective office and that needs to be mentioned, I feel, because it was part of his appeal to voters. I don't think it needs an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take it to a poll when we have a sub-consensus in this sub-committee. Elective office is not the same as governmental service, but the latter is inclusive of the former. So it's both unnecessary and incorrect to say "governmental service or elective office". &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  02:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it really is not inclusive of governmental service, as 'service' does not imply elected. Never having held elected office was an appeal of Trump to voters and RS supports it. On the popular vote, I commented above.SW3 5DL (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mandruss, and strongly oppose inserting "elective office" because it goes against consensus #8, and it sounds awful: "without prior military or governmental service, or elective office". What kind of elective office is not governmental service?  This would just confuse readers.  It's clear from the lack of "governmental service" that he never held elective office, and I never heard Trump say "vote for me because I never held elective office but may have held some other governmental office".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now we're splitting hairs at the expense of good writing. If we need to convey that "Never having held elected office was an appeal of Trump to voters", we don't have to do it in this sentence. And we could do it far more clearly than by our choice of a few words in this sentence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Military service is governmental service, too, and not at all elected. Not having held elective office mattered to the voters. Specific language matters. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Military service is not what the ordinary reader thinks of when they read "governmental service". We have now achieved circularity. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think the sentence needs all that. It's enough to say, and I believe has more meaning for the reader, "never held elected office." When I read 'military/governmental service" I think, meh. But never held elective office before becoming the president of the US? That's quite an accomplishment, and rare for voters to go along with it, even rarer still for a political party to go along with it, as evidenced by the vigor with which the Republicans tried to stop him. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * SW3, I am really disappointed to see you still hammering on this "elective office" point. I though you had agreed here that you accepted my logic for leaving it out, in favor of "governmental or military service". Yes, "not having held previous elective office" is rare (he is the sixth); but "not having held ANY government office OR military service" is not just rare, it is unique. I think you need to take a step back, and realize that you have not convinced anyone on this issue this despite bringing it up over and over. Consensus has to rule here, and sometimes consensus means we don't get exactly what we want. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit harsh. I've been working deligently towards gaining consenus. This is process that gets honed, and input is necessary. Doesn't mean people can't change their mind or see a better way to say something. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been working diligently, yes - and you have not gotten consensus for your version. Despite your best efforts you have not convinced even a single person. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, and you can dissent from what is clearly becoming the consensus version here - but the consensus version is what is going to go into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. And note that the "elective office" does come up in the body of the text: "Of the 44 previous presidents, 39 had held prior elective office; 2 had not held elective office but had served in the Cabinet; and 3 had never held public office but had been commanding generals.[357]" --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it can come up in the body of the lede, and we add the governmental military bit in the body of the text. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And see what reliable sources say.  Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding "elective office" is superfluous and bludgeons the sentence. Also, I doubt that voters specifically supported him for this reason; he was loved or loathed for being an outsider to the political system, i.e. playing no government role whatsoever (elected or appointed), while being well-acquainted with political figures (as a real estate developer in the trenches and as a wealthy donor to all sides). Thus I believe the phrasing properly represents the uniqueness of his candidacy. — JFG talk 07:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Final tweak?
The proposed paragraph ends with and the fourth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote, which sounds a bit cumbersome. I understand that "less than a plurality" is technically correct but it doesn't really speak to casual readers. I would suggest and the fifth elected with a lower smaller share of the popular vote nationwide (similar to the Bush 43 formulation). The linked article provides all the details readers may crave. — JFG talk 09:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I still like the elimination of the word "plurality". And as long as we're discussing fine points, I question whether the word "nationwide" earns its keep. Would it be ambiguous without that word? If not the nationwide popular vote, what popular vote could we be referring to? We've all seen sentences developed to the point that they are completely accurate, completely precise, and completely unreadable. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Smaller share. I want a big piece of the pie, not a high one. But I agree that your average high school grad shouldn't have to go another article or the dictionary to understand that particular sentence. Hell I'm 60 and I don't think I knew what "plurality" meant 5 years ago. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Amended. — JFG talk 09:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fewer votes in the general election. In America, there's the general election to determine which states are won to determine the winner of the electoral college. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you doing? You have eliminated all reference to popular vote, which is the whole point, while replacing that with language that is ambiguous as to electoral vs popular, while obliterating any trace of what it looked like before. I'm tempted to revert that series of edits. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored JFG's proposed version which was " and the fifth elected with a lower smaller share of the popular vote nationwide". SW3 5DL proposed replacing it with and the fifth elected to receive fewer votes in the general election. Let's discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought we were tweaking the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No harm done, although I still don't see the logic of your change.
 * No, now the whole thing has gone off the rails again, because we make it seem like his opponent got a majority which she did not (and using the word "small" to describe his performance is very unflattering to boot). As for the word "national", yes it's critical because the popular vote in each state determined who won that state.  Like it or not, the American system of electing a president is not something that can easily be detailed in a few words so it can be understood by kindergartners.  Maybe the best thing would be to follow the Zachary Taylor example, and just say in the lead he was elected, and leave the details for later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall suggesting exactly that a couple of days ago and getting no support for the concept. It's probably the toughest sell of all. I'm at a loss as to where to go from here, but I don't think continued circular debate in this thread will be fruitful. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree eliminating 'plurality' is best. Also, I thought you didn't like the term 'popular vote.' So I looked into it, and you are correct. Calling it the popular vote is misleading of the process. A popular vote in primaries will determine the winner of the primaries, but even then, the party convention has rules that can over turn that because here is someone representing their party, their platform. Then when they've settled on the candidate, he/she moves on to what is called the general election, where again, a so-called popular vote will determine who won the number of states necessary to reach 270 electoral votes. I'm fine with or without popular vote, whichever you prefer. But the sentence about winning the popular vote in the nationwide election, is a mouthful and not commonly used. It's called the general election. All the reliable sources, NYTimes, WashPo, CNN, HuffPost, Time, etc., call it the general election. I'm simply attempting to keep the phrasing simple and in line with the representative republic process that elects an American president. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tutorial, but I understand the American presidential electoral process fairly well. General election is not a different way of saying popular vote, and they are not interchangeable. It would be nonsensical to say that Clinton received a larger share of the general election. Your phrase "fewer votes in the general election" is ambiguous because you don't specify whether that's fewer electoral votes or a smaller share of the popular vote (as I said above, there is only one popular vote). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to tutor you. Trump won the majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency, and is the fourth to be elected with fewer popular votes in the general election." SW3 5DL (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How about this
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth whose defeated rival received more of the national popular vote though less than a majority. I also want to mention that this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and numerous reliable sources use the word "plurality" in this context, see BBC, Washington Post, International Business Times,  Real Clear Politics, et cetera. But I'm not wedded to the word "plurality" (i.e. we can alternatively go the Zachary Taylor route or instead something like what I've just suggested by blockquote). By the way, I have never edited Simple English Wikipedia, but you might be interested to read what its lead says about Trump's margin of victory: "He became the president-elect on November 9, 2016, after a close race with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Each of them needed 270 electoral votes to win. Trump earned 279 [sic], but Clinton had 228."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I watched Vice President Joe Biden, in the combined House/Senate session, declare Trump had won 304 and Clinton 227. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know what "sic" means?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't notice you were quoting.SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you are fighting for precision here, however the latest proposal is a mouthful, frankly. Let me give it one more try:
 * Or we ditch this thing entirely, but lots of people will scream…
 * Or, boldly moving the mention around again, so we can link to the article with historical details on similar cases:
 * Take your pick! Why on Earth did I open a "final tweak" section? — JFG talk 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of those three, I would definitely pick "B". The main problem with "A" and "C" is that they both leave readers with the impression that Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, which she did not, and they also leave open the possibility that she won the popular vote by 99% to 1% which she did not.  I don't normally like parentheticals in a lead, but maybe we need them:
 * Take your pick! Why on Earth did I open a "final tweak" section? — JFG talk 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of those three, I would definitely pick "B". The main problem with "A" and "C" is that they both leave readers with the impression that Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, which she did not, and they also leave open the possibility that she won the popular vote by 99% to 1% which she did not.  I don't normally like parentheticals in a lead, but maybe we need them:
 * Of those three, I would definitely pick "B". The main problem with "A" and "C" is that they both leave readers with the impression that Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, which she did not, and they also leave open the possibility that she won the popular vote by 99% to 1% which she did not.  I don't normally like parentheticals in a lead, but maybe we need them:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fourth whose defeated rival received more of the national popular vote (though less than a majority).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Grammatically, "the first" and "the fifth" imply a noun following them, that noun brought forward from the preceding clause. As written above, that noun could only be "person", which would be incorrect (he is not the first person without prior military or governmental service). That fixed, and with other modifications: &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC) User:Mandruss, I don't see why you insist on the word "small". What is your objection to saying "president whose defeated rival received more of the national popular vote"? And why is it useful to not merely imply (incorrectly) that Clinton received a majority of the popular vote, but to also leave open the possibility that she received 99% of it? Even Simple Wikipedia's lead says it was a close election. And why leave out the word "national" before "popular vote"? After all, there was a popular vote in each state that determined the electoral votes, and no one who lost the popular vote in any state received more electoral votes there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Mandruss proposal 3: &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've answered a lot of that previously. For example, I've already said Would it be ambiguous without that word? If not the nationwide popular vote, what popular vote could we be referring to? and I have not received a response. Clearly no reader is going to read that as Clinton winning every state's popular vote. How many reliable sources feel compelled to make that distinction? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Zillions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, seeing "national popular vote" multiple times in this Wikipedia article, I'll give you the word "national" back. As for your other objections, I don't feel the need to encapsulate everything about the election in this one sentence. Mandruss proposal 2: &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss, at the end of the first sentence, please add "in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote". Otherwise, we are suggesting that she won a majority, perhaps as much as 99%.  Why should we do that?  (I would also replace "a smaller share" with "less" because it's much more concise and does not arguably denigrate).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so "smaller share" arguably denigrates but "less" does not, somehow. Size matters, especially in matters concerning Donald Trump. I'll try to remember that. Here you go.
 * User:Mandruss, looks good to me. ("Smaller" has connotations of an absolute meaning (as in "small"), whereas "less" is relative and more concise.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, SW3, the "popular vote" is almost always the total of votes by individual citizens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There Is Only One Popular Vote. See Popular vote (representative democracy). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * fewer votes nationwide? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * electoral votes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , do you want to say he won the electoral vote but won fewer votes nationwide? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already said (above) lots of way I would find acceptable. What I find unacceptable is for the lead to say or imply that Trump's performance in the election was "small[]", to say or imply that he didn't win the popular vote in any state, and to say or imply that Hillary Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote and may have even won 99% of it.  I do not think these objections are unreasonable, and we can do better than that (even if we omit the word "plurality" which is used by lots of reliable sources, and omit numbers which are also used by lots of reliable sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem may well be trying to jam too much in one sentence. It becomes clear as mud. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I understand what you're saying, but the problem is the popular vote is concentrated in coastal states. It's true Trump won more states, and far more of the country than Clinton. Looking at the map, he beat her like a drum. If you take out California, he wins the so-called popular vote. The race in terms of popular vote is close. I don't know how to get all that in. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And N.B., I put in 'defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. . ." because of your prior concerns. I thought that would make it plain enough that she didn't win. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What needs to be added is that the election was so close that neither candidate won a majority of the national popular vote. Why is that so difficult to include?  Why must we suggest that she might have gotten 99% of the popular vote?  First people say we cannot use numbers to convey this info.  Then people say we cannot use the word "plurality" to convey this info.  Well, fine, convey it without numbers and without the word "plurality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Try writing all that in a sentence. How do you want it to read? And btw, I think we should have numbers. A number is worth a 1000 words. Maybe we should use plurality. It's wonky but it does condense the meaning to one word. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Like this: Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, in which neither candidate won a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president elected with less than a majority of the national popular vote than his opponent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, I have a tweak I'd like to make. brb. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC) . SW3 5DL (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Gents, we are back to trying to jam lots of facts into a sentence while keeping it readable, and most readers won't easily understand the subtle distinctions that we are making. Here is yet another avenue to be precise and concise, with a little note about the details:
 * How's that for a solution to our predicament? — JFG talk 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How's that for a solution to our predicament? — JFG talk 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

S/he asked you to explain your rationale for a change that neither of us understood, and your only response was about passive-aggressiveness and rabbit holes. That doesn't scream for accommodation, frankly. If you're at your frustration limit, take a break. I've probably said all I have to contribute for awhile, and I'm going to await comments from others. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton was a the Democratic candidate. Not a rival. A candidate, duly winning the primaries, and the convention vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye. — JFG talk 18:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx. And. . .the "despite garnering fewer votes nationwide." He didn't need to win the majority of votes nationwide. He only needed to win enough states to give him 270 electoral votes. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We all know this; however the lead of a candidate's bio is not the appropriate place to write a dissertation on the subtleties of the US presidential election process. We need to say something as neutral as possible about this "popular vote" fact. If "despite" sounds negative, we could use "while", but I think it fails to convey that there has been a controversy. All in all, I feel that this formulation best conveys the mood of the nation without offending either side: a clear but surprising victory, marred by unwillingness by the opposing side to accept the democratically-valid result. — JFG talk 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JFG, we're talking about the biggest political event in years, and the most surprising presidential election upset since 1948. I have never seen a note in a lead (as distinguished from a footnote), and even if it is allowed by MOS we should not be imposing a zillion constraints on this. Fine no numbers, fine no use of the word "plurality".  But now I have to agree to not indicate it was a close election (except in a note that no one will read), and not indicate that neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote, and not indicate that HRC received less than 99% of the national popular vote?  I cannot agree to that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two such notes in the lead of United States presidential election, 2016 and there's one in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. It's an elegant way to provide details without overloading the prose, and from experience it has withstood consensus. MOS has nothing against it, that I'm aware of. With regard to this being a close election, it really wasn't particularly outlandish. People who look at the states and electoral college say that Trump won handily, whereas people who look at the total ballots cast say that Clinton trounced him in the popular vote; we'll never be able to reconcile these positions. Bush / Gore was extremely close by both measures. — JFG talk 18:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Either a lead has notes and footnotes, or it doesn't. We either need to fully annotate this lead, or remove notes and footnotes.  A hybrid lead does not work for me, with some things footnotes and others not.  It looks sloppy, and I don't think it's consistent with MOS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A hybrid lead does not work for me, with some things footnotes and others not. A hybrid lead? Obviously we can have as many notes as we need. If that's only one, that's not a problem; that doesn't make it a "hybrid lead". For Pete's sake, Anythingyouwant, you should change your username to Anythingbutwhatyouwant. If you "don't think it's consistent with MOS", prove it. I have no ideological objection to notes in the lead, and I can't think of any good reason for such an objection. That's a good compromise between no detail in the lead and all detail in the lead. Such a note could be expanded as desired with far less opposition. I think that's the right direction. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason to have a non-footnote "note" attached to the lead, instead of simply putting details in the body of the article. I doubt you could find one single featured article or good article that has such a note in the lead, especially in leads that are not fully footnoted.  You say I support "anything but what you want", but you know very well that I fully support your latest proposal.  You also know very well that I've agreed to the silly rule against numbers in the lead, and the silly rule against the word "plurality" in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I exaggerated a little. You're probably right, I probably couldn't find such an article, because (1) there is no practical way to do so, as you no doubt are aware, and (2) notes are fairly uncommon in general. That doesn't make notes a bad idea in the lead. We do what works best and we don't obsess over arbitrary rules, especially when they aren't even rules. Anyway, I could support either Mandruss proposal 3 or some note solution, I'm flexible. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * think he's just being disruptive at this point. He's not making any real contribution here. Notice he's not even trying to make edits that accommodate the other editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:POT.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know he's a he?
 * I'm going by his repeated criticism of the suggested edits. I've attempted to incorporate his desires. I'm confused by your comments about making a change nobody understood. The discussion has evolved quite a bit, can you please show a diff? If you read through the thread, can you show me where he's done anything to accommodate the others? From what I've been dealing with this morning, he seems intent on finding fault with every suggestion. I honed the thing as best I could, then he comes back with an edit from you. All of a sudden he's found satisfaction? In a talkquote that was from a good bit ago? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Time to go to user talk, this is too much off topic. I'll come to you, give me 10 minutes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

tweaking
Please let me know what you think of this below. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) SW3 5DL (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the word "plurality" is verboten ruled out by extensive discussion . If we want to start allowing it, then we could have a much more concise paragraph, the way it is right now in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to edit a comment after someone has already responded to it, please use strikethroughs and underlines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Call for consensus on Mandruss proposal 3 : Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first president without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth president who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent. Can we agree on this? I think it's fine. It omits numbers as requested. It omits the word "plurality" as requested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It should say "defeated.' And please don't wall off my edit which I have spent all morning trying to accommodate your requests. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where should it say "defeated" and why? I won't even ask why it's okay for you to install a subsection header but not me.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you are not here just to confound the process.SW3 5DL (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where should it say "defeated" and why?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry not going down the passive-aggressive rabbit hole again. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would guess that what you're saying is that the word "defeat" needs to somehow go into this sentence: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton...." But the sentence is grammatically correct without the word "defeat" and the word "defeat" adds nothing as far as I can tell.  What do you think it adds?  If you sincerely think it's somehow obvious what the word "defeat" adds, then I give up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the talk quote doesn't say that, nor is it grammatically incorrect. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Mandruss proposal (which you were criticizing) says exactly what I said it says: "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the talkquote I wrote. That's the only talkquote I'm talking about in all my posts here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, I thought we were so close! JFG, I really appreciate your effort to summarize the previous discussion into proposed wording. That's what consensus building is all about. I have read all the proposals and I endorse Anything's latest version (which he described as the Mandruss proposal) in this subsection - as it is, no need to say "defeat" if it says he won. And please let's remain courteous and not accuse each other of bad faith. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * About the "Mandruss 3" proposal: the wording "in which neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote" sounds redundant with "who received less of the national popular vote than his opponent". Now we're saying twice that Trump "lost" the popular vote, whereas we have I believe editor consensus that this fact should not be given undue weight compared to his actual winning the election. Therefore I cannot endorse this version as it stands. I would ask fellow editors to please reconsider my C2 proposal, which sounds sharper while remaining balanced. — JFG talk 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

What about that one? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the word "plurality" is verboten already ruled out by lengthy discussion . If we want to start allowing it, then we could have a much more concise paragraph, the way it is right now in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Upon request, I can enumerate the reasons why I like my prop 3 far more than the above proposal. I think most of my reasons are already known from my previous comments, and I would prefer not to repeat myself yet again. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Verboten" is not a very useful word here. I voiced what I thought was a cogent argument against "plurality", and I thought folks were convinced, but there is no consensus on the question. I can be overridden. Nothing is forbidden. Comparing "less of the national popular vote than his opponent" (my proposal 3) to "less than a plurality of the national popular vote" (status quo), I fail to see how the latter is "much more concise". My version has the same number of words (9) and one more character (51). If the status quo is "much more concise" overall, it isn't because it uses the word "plurality".
 * User:Mandruss, I'm glad to strike out "verboten" and now do so. Regarding concision, if we say that Trump recieved less than a plurality, that implies Clinton received a plurality, so it would be unnecessary to say that neither candidate received a majority of the national popular vote.  I continue to support your version 3, Mandruss.  But I also have no objection to how the paragraph is right now in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This version has unfortunately the same problem as "Mandruss 3", in that it places undue weight on Trump's "loss" of the popular vote, which is mentioned twice. — JFG talk 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

, Yes, but it does mention the Electoral College. I've tweaked it and it think we need the larger community. Perhaps editors with fresh eyes will come up with a better solution. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to the C2 proposal if it is edited a little: "Donald Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton despite garnering fewer votes nationwide. . He garnered less of the popular vote nationwide, and they both garnered less than a majority. At age 70, he will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first U.S. president without prior military or governmental service."  I would not object if we also mention that garnering less of the popular vote has happened before, but would not insis on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. This looks very much like my version C4 below, which I posted simultaneously to your comment. Would you support that? — JFG talk 00:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A possible problem with C4 is that it doesn't seem to indicate that she got more of the popular vote than he did, or how unusual that is, but I would be willing to leave those details for later in the article (just like I'm willing to include them in the lead).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant your proposal is very close to my C3. I'm fine with either, I just wish we can settle this and get on with our lives… The prospect of an RfC depresses me… — JFG talk 00:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could live with C3, but prefer option number one in the RFC, because I don't especially like parentheticals in leads, I also prefer saying that Trump won without using the same sentence to detract from the win (by suggesting she had an advantage in popular voting), and moreover option one in the RFC indicates how unusual the situation is. The RFC won't take long if it's a snow close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so here's C5 for your pleasure:
 * No footnotes, no parentheses, no repeats, doesn't minimize Trump's victory, gives an honest account of the lack of plurality without using that word, and it's short and sweet. I think it can satisfy all participants here and I'm tempted to add it to the RfC… — JFG talk 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No footnotes, no parentheses, no repeats, doesn't minimize Trump's victory, gives an honest account of the lack of plurality without using that word, and it's short and sweet. I think it can satisfy all participants here and I'm tempted to add it to the RfC… — JFG talk 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

New proposal submitted toward consensus:
 * I took into account the objection of to adding a footnote and followed 's idea to expand the footnote contents into the text; however I made it shorter to keep the prose fluid and preserve appropriate weight per my remarks on 's proposal 3.:
 * And yet an even shorter one:
 * Yay? Nay? — JFG talk 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yay? Nay? — JFG talk 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yay? Nay? — JFG talk 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I support this. Good work distilling a long and confusing discussion to a version that I do believe represents consensus. Oops - I failed to notice that it leaves out the fact that she got a larger share of the popular vote. That does need to be included, and it is included in "version #1" of the RfC, which I assumed (never assume) was the same as this proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, you want C3 which says it all. — JFG talk 02:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Need more editors for consensus. The edit has changed. Fresh eyes by others will put perspective back and offer better suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started an RfC. We need fresh eyes on this. I used the Mandruss proposal and the one I had. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way: some versions say he is the fourth, others say the fifth. Reliable Sources have differed on this. Whether he is the fourth or the fifth depends on how you count John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson got a plurality in BOTH the electoral college and the popular vote that year, but nobody got a majority, so it went to the House which chose Adams. I prefer "fifth" and so does our article United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I believe that's a typo as looking at my word file had 5th per the Wikipedia article sources. I can strike it out and add 5th or leave a note under. Which do you prefer? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's my try (standing on the pained backs of others, of course ;) ) ... Thanks for consider. IHTS (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This also looks good and I would support it. Tweaks: I would suggest "neither received a majority" rather than "both received less than a majority". And I don't think "challenger" is the right word; that usually describes a person running against an incumbent. Actually this is very similar to option #3 in the RfC below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx, good. (I suppose "over Democratic adversary Hillary Clinton" isn't good either, but maybe it is? [Less dry reading.] And is the second "president" unnecessary? [I.e. is "will become the oldest and wealthiest president, and the first without prior military or governmental service" adequate?]) I think mine is the most concise (fewest words) option, you helped make even shorter! :) IHTS (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And is there something wrong w/ "rival"? Here is from Reuters today: "[...] lawmakers from both Trump's Republican Party and the rival Democratic Party sought to establish how closely Sessions hewed to Trump positions and whether he could put aside his staunchly conservative political positions to enforce laws he may personally oppose." So here's my updated ... Thanks for consider. IHTS (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Is terrible, can we change it? Shit, we should make it Trump's official Presidential portrait, when it's taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:3D1F:3BB7:60F9:F5C2 (talk)


 * When the official portrait is published the infobox picture will be updated to be in line with past presidents. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please no. For the love of God, not this again. It will be updated when there is an official Presidential portrait. Until then, this is the best we have under a suitable license. This has been discussed ad nauseum. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Will there be an official one around the time he is sworn in? If so, we only have a few days left.  Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't know. Barack Obama's official photo was released in January 2009. We will likely have an official government photo to use around that time. The painted portrait is typically unveiled around the time they leave office. Still, nobody wants another round of RFCs about the top photo when we will likely have a public domain government photo very soon. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, this is a complete joke. The man is about to be inaugurated as President of the United States and there is an objectively awful picture representing him and people are concerned about some silly consensus thing? This shouldn't even be up for discussion. This picture is terrible and anyone honestly thinking this is ok clearly has bias. Just use a decent picture for the love of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.215.53 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * some silly consensus thing – consensus was reached to keep the current image until an official one was released to the public domain. Either that or there was no consensus in favour of changing to a different one. Prior to this, there was, as said, extensive dispute and probably edit warring over which image should be used. A change of image without consensus between editors is likely to cause more edit warring.   Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's correct. If you look back in the archive, there are literally dozens of discussion threads and hundreds of reverts regarding the top image, not to mention multiple noticeboard threads. Trust me when I say that this image is the best we currently have under a compatible license. Some have even tried contacting the Trump campaign to ask them to provide a better one under an acceptable license, but this is the best we can do for now. All the alternatives are worse. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see, item 1. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Trivia added to lede
Somebody added this sentence to the lede: "Trump admires Richard Nixon[12] and, as well, claims to admire Auric Goldfinger[13][14] and P.T. Barnum.[15][16]" I consider this trivial to the point of nonsensical. IMO it doesn't belong in the article, much less in the lede. I can't revert it right now; does someone else want to? --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Please deposit brownie points in my account.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes, the following "very well sourced edit", published by several "Reliable Sources", such as "The New York Times", "The Washington Post" and "Bloomberg News", was added to the "Donald Trump" article in good faith (see copy below) - and later reverted by "User:Anythingyouwant" - some may consider the edit worthy - and sufficiently worthy to include in the "Donald Trump" article - Comments Welcome by other editors of course - to reach "WP:CONSENSUS" - per "WP:BRD", "WP:OWN" & related - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)  Copied from "Donald Trump (10:25, 29 December 2016 version)": Trump admires Richard Nixon and, as well, claims to admire Auric Goldfinger  and P.T. Barnum.


 * Well, in my opinion, you've put undue weight on the people you've chosen to mention, plus distorted the cited sources. Those sources say he also admires people like Clint Eastwood and Orson Welles, but you've chosen to ignore that because you want to make Trump look as bad as possible.  And you distort what Trump said about the people you do mention; for example, did he say that he admires Goldfinger, or rather that he thinks it was a great character?  I can and do think Uriah Heep was a great character, without in any way admiring him.  And, of course, none of this is remotely appropriate for the lead, which is supposed to serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Anythingyouwant, there was some problem with the weighting of these particular names, and yes, the exact verbiage needed some work. But it was still a good faith and sourced edit, placed in a reasonable part of the article (#Early life) although personally I would have created a new subsection called Donald Trump in the vein of articles about musicians and artists, which covers their antecedents and predecessors and how they viewed such things.  Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose anywhere in the article, per MelanieN, even if Eastwood and Welles are included. Will retire if added to the lead. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - agreed - *entirely* ok with me to add "Clint Eastwood" and "Orson Welles"  as well - esp if appropriately sourced by a "WP:RS" of course - however - no - did not intentionally try to slight the content in any way - nonetheless - seems being aware of such influences (*any and all*) may be helpful in understanding the person in some way I would think - to me, at the moment, it may be "WP:Undue" to try and hide (and/or "WP:CENSOR"?) such influences from public view instead - also - no - the original edit was not added to the lede at all, as originally claimed by "User:MelanieN" or, later, erroneously repeated by "User:Anythingyouwant" and "User:Mandruss" - the edit was actually "added" to a non-lede subordinate section (ie, "Donald Trump" - see "edit" ) instead - hope this all helps in some way - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite right, User:Drbogdan, you put it into the "Early life" section rather than the lead (I must try not to reflexively agree with User:MelanieN so much!). Anyway, if you would like to draft up a revised sentence and present it here, then we would be glad to give it a look, but you would have to explain why this would be more important than the zillion other little factoids about Trump that we have opted to leave out of this particular article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for erroneously stating it was in the lede. But it doesn't fit any better in the "early life" section - in a paragraph about his family. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Are we able to source a preference for vanilla, strawberry or chocolate? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please, Ryk72, the neapolitan triplet? No no no, that will never do.  Cherry-vanilla ice cream.  Sourced.  Probably WP:ABOUTSELF since it is an interview, but Us Magazine back in 2010 probably has enough reliable-source-standing to have correctly recorded for posterity, the flavor Trump verbalized, with enough accuracy for wikipedia purposes.  It was founded as a spinoff of the NYT, you know!  Before he became the POTUS, he was a pop culture celeb, so we have almost any trivial factoid you might wish for.  Bet you are glad you asked  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - np - iac - another suggested edit addition to consider may be the following (*entirely* ok w/ me to ce or place elsewhere in the article of course):  Another suggested edit addition to the "Donald Trump" article: Trump admires Richard Nixon and, as well, claims to admire P.T. Barnum. Hollywood film notables, favored by Trump, include fictional film character Auric Goldfinger and the film actor/director Clint Eastwood; Trump claims that his favorite film is Citizen Kane.

Other similar possible edit additions, to help better understand "Donald Trump", may be considered as well of course - Comments Welcome - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Favorite color? Boxers or briefs? Sorry but none of this gives me any great insight into the mind of Donald Trump. If I thought it did, I would probably be wrong. Not encyclopedic. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to see how to salvage this proposal, because it doesn't really respect the sources. The sources say Trump sees himself as comparable to PT Barnum but only "a little bit".  The sources say Goldfinger was one of his favorite characters, not that Trump favors Goldfinger against his fictional adversaries.  Moreover, the stuff about Nixon is too vague to be useful, without saying what it was about Nixon that he admires; surely Trump doesn't admire Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal, whereas many people admire Nixon's rapprochement with China.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion - and your interpretation of the noted "sourced content" - it's *greatly* appreciated - however - a more objective view of the suggested content may be better I would think - accepting the content from the cited "reliable sources", without such interpretation, and "as is" (and/or "prima facie"?), may be preferred - the suggested edits (see proposed versions above) seem sufficiently worthy to add to the "Donald Trump" article afaics atm - further Comments Welcome of course - in any regards - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN that the stuff about which politicians Trump has been quoted as being influenced by, is a bit trivial for the main biographical article. (Once he has a few years of governing under his belt, *then* his record of governing will generate some actions-to-actions comparisons to historical politicians.)  But I also agree with Drbogdan that this stuff is important.  Just as with Trump's professed admiration for Patton, we need to have Trump's commentary on other politicians he has said things about -- both real ones like Nixon and literary ones like Goldfinger -- in almost exactly the way we say that Trump likes Patton because he likes Patton (film).  Speaking of which, see also Enlai's action.  That kind of stuff speaks to Trump's influences, and probably belongs in Political positions of Donald Trump, along with his statements about Putin and his phone-call to Taiwan/Argentina/etc as peotus, and other such things.  It is way more important, for instance, that Trump has professed a personal gut reaction to Nixon (who after watergate is probably most famous for re-opening relations with China), than that Trump endorsed the ethanol-lobby in Iowa (and eventually partially thereby earned the backing of former-Chris-Christie endorser Gov.Branstad the ambassador-designate to China).  What particular things Trump says and does not say, do make a difference, and did also in past elections -- Palin was criticized for liking Hoosiers for instance -- whereas Gore was lauded for going to Vietnam yet also lauded for being morally against going to Vietnam.  Trump's thoughts on film-characters and politicians are not a huge part of his biography, but they do belong somewhere in his subsidiary backstory articles.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump's opinions about historical and fictional characters? What does Goldfinger have to do with his political positions?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That he wanted to rule the world? But somewhat more seriously, please see List of economic advisors to Donald Trump, which includes Judy Shelton, one of the relatively-rare Ph.D economists which had been advising Trump... both Shelton and Trump have spoken favorably of a return to the gold standard, or a modern equivalent thereof, although it tends to be mentioned rarely, and more as "something that would be nice if we could manage it one day" rather than as "something that I guarantee will happen".  47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - and Additionally => "Goldfinger" may represent "wanting more" - both politically - and economically - and even moreso? - perhaps relevant? - perhaps significant? - the alternative - having *enough* - may not easily apply here I would think - *enough* may be something some may never have apparently - if interested, my published "NYT" comments in 2013 may be even more relevant today => " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/krugman-the-one-percents-solution.html?comments#permid=380 " - in any case - hope this helps in some way to support adding such notions to the "Donald Trump" article as a possible improvement - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no sense beating around the bush. If reliable sources say that his appreciation of the Goldfinger character somehow indicates a predisposition to reinstate the gold standard into monetary policy, then your draft ought to say so.  Seems kind of farfetched though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing in Trump's statements that remotely suggests such a connection. If a few "reliable" sources jump to that conclusion, I don't think we are obligated to jump with them. Even if we did, it would have to be handled as opinion/analysis, and I would seriously question the WP:DUE. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup re "Goldfinger", "Donald Trump" and the "Gold Standard" - there seems to be numerous "Reliable Sources" re the Connections - Several Examples are as follows: --

Casual Internet Searches for "gold standard" "donald trump" "goldfinger" gave several "Reliable Sources" (there are more): Casual Internet Searches for "gold standard" "donald trump" also gave several "Reliable Sources" (there are more):
 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2016/04/10/book-review-james-rickards-the-new-case-for-gold/#4739e37a43d7
 * http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/donald-trump-gold-metal-invest/2016/07/23/id/740159/
 * http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482279689/trump-favors-returning-to-the-gold-standard-few-economists-agree
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-meeting-john-allison-bank-ceo-abolish-the-fed-gold-standard-2016-11
 * http://www.inquisitr.com/3763192/trumps-treasury-pick-has-odd-gold-standard-and-federal-reserve-ideals/

Perhaps helpful for those interested in the above Connections? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * None of those sources says that Trump likes Goldfinger because he favors a return to the gold standard. Google searches are not enough, you actually need to read the sources you cite. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, my point in bringing up Shelton, was that Trump's formal and informal economic advisors, have some worthwhile impact on his presidency. Drbogdan's point in bringing up Trump's opinions on geopolitical actors (see what I did there?) like Reagan and Goldfinger, is that those opinions do say something about the character of the person holding the opinion, and the decision to publicize the factoid is itself WP:NOTEWORTHY.  The requirement here is not to prove that "Trump likes Goldfinger" and therefore "Trump would support a gold standard".  That would be WP:SYNTH.  The point is that, we have refs saying Trump and some of his advisors support the gold standard, and those belong in the appropriate article -- List of economic advisors to Donald Trump and also Political appointments of Donald Trump since Shelton is under consideration for a formal role in the administration (ditto for Allison who was covered at Cabinet of Donald Trump).  There is a *separate* issue as to whether and where the goldfinger/nixon/patton/etc press coverage, ought to go, and the answer is, either in the biographical article Donald Trump in a views-or-stances-or-personal-life-subsection, or in a background-section of Political positions of Donald Trump.  The sources exist to prove that the reliable media *does* pay attention to such things, as what Trump/Palin/Gore/etc thought about various issues.  That means that WP:NOTEWORTHY has been achieved, an the question becomes, which article is appropriate for the info?  We should not add anything about Goldfinger to the economic advisors article, until and unless Trump is on record saying "Goldfinger's positions influenced me to make a speech before congress about economic issue xyz".  But *that* is no reason to keep the goldfinger factoid out of mainspace.  It is a factoid, and the reliable sources have paid attention to it, thus we ought to see where it fits in an encyclopedic context.  Some things do NOT fit, such as Trump's favorite ice cream, because everybody has a favorite food, and that favorite food (unless one is a chef) almost never has impact on history.  Trump's love of the movie Patton (film) may yet have impact on history, cf James Mattis and John F. Kelly and Michael Flynn and so on.  No moving the goalposts please, this is not a discussion about whether there is a connection between goldfinger and shelton, this is a discussion about whether there is a sourced connection between Trump and his opinions on various politicians/films/etc, and if so where the sourced material best ought be summarized in wikivoice.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not "where in the encyclopedia should we put these comments?"; it's "should we put these anywhere?" Just because things are sourced, i.e. have been mentioned by a reliable source, does not mean we have to use them. There is no evidence that Trump himself meant anything more than an offhand response to an interviewer's question. We should not clutter up this or any article with stuff like this - unless and until we see evidence that these people actually matter to him in terms of affecting his actions or his philosophy. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly relevant question to this discussion => Should an "encyclopedia" (like "Wikipedia") present "notable" Facts from "reliable sources" (see suggested edits above) - and let the Reader understand them for themselves - in their own way - OR - should editors first select "notable" Facts from "reliable sources" (perhaps even in some pov way?) for the Reader to view instead - Generally - which seems better? - and more encyclopedic? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The key here is that we include notable facts from reliable sources - and not trivial or unimportant (non-notable) facts from reliable sources. And there is no need to add quotes and wikilinks to every other word, which may be regarded as patronizing/insulting/sarcastic/all of the above. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply - yes - agreed - seems WP:CONSENSUS may be the best way of determining WP:Notability afaics atm - as to the quotes - seemed to me a helpful way of highlighting hyperlinks - never thought this might be understood otherwise - Thank you for letting me know - in any regards - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 47.222.203.135, your last comment decorated this page with 426 words explaining what this discussion about, without providing a shred of RS support for inclusion of anything. With respect, I perceive a very low signal-to-noise ratio. To my knowledge, no RS has been presented to support anything but "Trump's favorite" trivia, and I think we have some agreement to omit that from this article (or at least a lack of consensus to include it). Those of us who don't think the word "Goldfinger" has a place in this article are not required to prove the negative. Unless you can present some RS, I think it's time to euthanize this thread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think thou dost protest too much. "Sorry but none of this gives me any great insight into the mind of Donald Trump. If I thought it did, I would probably be wrong."  That was your comment, and I perceive that you have followed through on your comment with worthy persistence.  If you are truly interested in sources, please see below.  Or just open and new tab and do some searches, as Drbogdan suggested further up.  But worthy persistence is one thing, there is also such a thing as reinforcing one's initial gut reaction, by continually moving the goalposts.  As for your implied complaint about length, when I am more brief, you complain about that as well.  Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources say, and not have individual wikipedians (or groups of individual wikipedians) deciding what is relevant and what is not relevant for the readership -- that is not what WP:NOTEWORTHY says, and neither is it what WP:UNDUE says.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's opening comment clearly defined the topic of this thread, and it has nothing to do with Shelton or gold standard. For organization's sake, in my opinion, anything that tangential should be kept separate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Mandruss. To User:47.222.203.135 regarding this comment above: "Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources say, and not have individual wikipedians (or groups of individual wikipedians) deciding what is relevant and what is not relevant for the readership -- that is not what WP:NOTEWORTHY says, and neither is it what WP:UNDUE says." Sorry, but this is a complete distortion of Wikipedia policy. You seem to be saying that everything that has been mentioned by a Reliable Source has to be included somewhere. Neither NOTEWORTHY nor UNDUE implies anything like that. The truth is that Wikipedians absolutely DO decide what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in an international encyclopedia; we don't just blindly include everything every said about any subject by any reliable source. As I quoted to you on my talk page, WP:BALASP (a subsection of WP:NEUTRALITY) is the governing principle here. It says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This is exactly what we are talking about here: material which is verifiable (i.e. sourced) and impartial, but not of sufficient significance to be included in this or any article. (Unless you want to start an article Donald Trump's likes and dislikes Cultural and intellectual influences on Donald Trump, and good luck with that one at AfD.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

nothing directly to do with nixon/goldfinger/ptbarnum

 * Soundbite: "...in some ways, the movies are the defining element of American culture."  --William Jefferson Clinton, interview with Roger Ebert, immediately after Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008.
 * Patton (film) mentioned in June 2015, please see Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump == Trump said that to combat ISIL, he would "I would find you a proper general. I would find a Patton or a McArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin."
 * Page is locked, somebody please fix the grammar bugs: Trump said that to combat ISIL, he would " I would find you [referring to the voters] a proper...


 * James Mattis nominee-designate in December 2016, please see Cabinet of Donald Trump.
 * Quite a few pretty-solid sources.
 * Plus some more-borderline sources.

Wikipedia does not currently mention any 'Patton' sources that I have found in a quick skim through mainspace, except for the one June 2015 quote that I noted above. But pretty clearly there are reliable sources, almost enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone mere WP:NOTEWORTHY. Where does well-sourced encyclopedic material like this belong? Once we have answered the trump-faves-patton question, I believe it will be easier to answer the trump-faves-other sorts of questions. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And of course, that is not the only movie which has received impeccably solid sourcing, plus Trump is not the only potus to be profiled by the media in this way. Nor is Trump the only candidate mentioned, in said impeccable sourcing (plus of course in plenty of less-impeccable sourcing like People Magazine). And in some cases it is product-placement for the media-entity giving the interview, while in other cases films like Antwone Fisher are more than just commented on by politicians in passing.

Hatnote
Let's delete this: "'The Donald' redirects here. For other uses, see Donald (disambiguation)." Anyone who types "The Donald" is not looking for some other Donald. In other words, this part of the hatnote is just clutter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's pointless, and insulting to all the other Donalds.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I initially added the hatnote in reference to the subbreddit "The Donald" which has an article at /r/The_Donald, but that was removed. In the current form I have no objection to its removal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. - MrX 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post mention under Business career->Bankruptcies
The final sentence in the 3rd paragraph reads: A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."

Is there any particular reason as to why the bolded section is included here, in the context of his business bankruptcies? The only purpose for its addition that I can discern is to somehow slander the Post as biased or inaccurate in its reporting, because of the Trump campaign's decision to refuse giving them press credentials. (These credentials were also later reinstated, which is not mentioned.)

--Jw12321 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks VM. For the record, the quote from WaPo was dated February 29, 2016.. The credentials were suspended later, from June 16 to September 7, 2016.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you could read it other ways. You could say that the only purpose for its addition is to slander the Trump campaign as punishing the Post for negative reporting. Or you could say that it's a simple statement of fact, without bias. You could maybe make a WEIGHT argument against it, but I don't think the NPOV one flies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but either way, it doesn't belong in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It sought to connect two things without any RS indicating they were connected chronologically or any other way, which was OR. It omitted the brevity of the suspension which was POV.  And it gave undue weight to the matter, e.g. in relation to other publications that had their credentials briefly suspended.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed that it went away at +4 minutes, based on the unanimous agreement of two editors, "per talk". Okie dokie. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of that unrelated tidbit. It did indeed appear to wrongly suggest WaPo's statement was colored by the removal of their press credentials. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur that this piece of trivia had to go, no matter which way it's interpreted. — JFG talk 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hair
I believe the hair may be a result of the hair spray. Do we have sources for this?71.35.2.57 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure hair grows on a head all by itself. I have seen other people with hair. It is fairly common. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can personally attest that hair grows on a head that has never received a whiff of hair spray (and think about it: some babies are born with hair). I realize this is original research. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right about babies. I personally know two babies who were born with hair on their head, and, both had bare feet. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. Many human worm babies are birthed with a full head of hair. This one even has hair resembling Trump's. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you meant 'warm babies,' I don't know any worm babies, but your warm human baby is adorable. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Human worm babies" is a reference to Invader Zim. It's pretty obscure, but I like to throw things like this into my comments from time to time to see if anyone picks up on them! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference to Invader Zim was great. I really love throwing around the phrase "human worm babies" for the same reason. RedBear2040 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Knowing Simon's politics, I thought he was referring to Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think his hair should be mentioned as it has been covered by multiple reliable sources.

I am planning to work this into Donald Trump hair. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There used to be a full article about The Donald's hair, which was rightfully deleted. The section in the pop culture page is the appropriate place to document whatever is notable enough beyond pure WP:TRIVIA. Keep it light, by the grace of whichever God! — JFG talk 01:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Donald John Trump, Sr."
Someone has twice tried to add "Sr." to Trump's name, pointing out that he has a son named Donald John Trump, Jr. That is true, but that doesn't automatically mean that he goes by "Sr." and I could find no evidence that he ever does. In a quick search I got the impression that the only times that name is used is by someone who wants to mock him, for example the fake Twitter feed "Donald John Trump Sr.", tweeting as @hoaxDonaldTrump, and the fake Facebook page "The Unemployed for Sir. Donald John Trump Sr." I have removed it and invited the user to discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama's father was named Barack Obama, which makes him Jr. or II. He never uses it. Same with George Bush. In my mind, if a person doesn't use it, and there is no confusion, it makes no sense for us to use it. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never used by the subject or any RS. Non-starter. — JFG talk 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, per first sentence at MOS:JR. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2017
Weeaboo (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the template you added, it would really help if you indicated what changes you wanted made in the article, which you haven't done yet. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

edit request on 18 January 2017
Hampam (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌ - No request. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Trump protests in lede
Why is a there a sentence about anti-Trump protests in the lede? This is blatantly biased. I don't see this in the ledes of any of the other US presidents articles. If we're going to keep that (we shouldn't), then we need to include a sentence about the pro-Trump rallies as well per NPOV.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think we need some more attention to npov regarding this stuff. According to The Washington Post, "Ever since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015, he has attracted massive crowds to rallies across the country...." That is, protests in his favor.  Instead of saying so in the lead, we only say that there were lots of protests against him, and that he lied a lot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Re and  &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that FutureTrillionaire has deleted it, claiming that this discussion is clearly in favor of removing it; would you all say that is an accurate description of this discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay to remove it until it's presented in an npov manner. It remains in the body of the article, after all.  Keep in mind that a lot of the pro-Trump rallies received publicity regarding violent protests at them, and Politifact says at least some of that violence was instigated, and the "stated goal was to bait Trump supporters into violent acts simply by wearing certain t-shirts or saying anti-Trump remarks".  As for the other anti-Trump rallies, I don't know what proportion was sponsored by organizations versus individual participation, but it would be interesting to see what the reliable sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * “Instigation” implies responsibility. The fact that someone acts violently to words, either mouthed or on a t-shirt, does not make the t-shirt wearer responsible. Also, the Politfact article was based on a James O'Keefe video, which is an automatic disqualifier. Objective3000 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer your question,, no, an agreement between two editors is not a "clear consensus" at this article. I let it slide because the thread had been quiet for 36 hours, indicating a lack of interest. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Two editors have objected to the content on the basis that it's an NPOV violation to discuss anti-Trump protests in the lead without mentioning the "massive" rallies/protests in his favor. No one has disputed that it's an NPOV violation.  Under such circumstances, removal was obviously appropriate, and it can be restored if WP:NPOV is followed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to let the deletion slide also. There's an awful lot in the lede; this one sentence will not be missed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with the assessment above: either we remove protests from the lead or we balance them out by mentioning the supportive rally crowds. — JFG talk 23:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede/& Election section
I noticed the lede seems to bury the fact that Donald Trump has been elected President without holding any prior elected office and this fact is completely missing from the Election section. Instead, the emphasis there is on the Electoral College. Being a non-politician was a significant factor, and campaign issue, during the primaries and general election as it separated him from the professional politician class. The first sentence in the lede calls him a politician and is misleading, as he never was that. This makes it more imperative that the first lede sentence should include the fact that he is only the fifth person elected to the presidency who has never held prior elected office. The others are Zachary Taylor, Ulyssess S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Archive 40 discusses a different point of the lede, that of avoiding bad redundant prose in the first paragraph (and only the first 2-3 sentences if the paragraph becomes long). You can dispute the contents but I have decided to withdraw from that fight and from the entire article except to concentrate on one matter, to avoid redundant prose. (see how bad redundant prose is, I just did it) Trump's only claim to being a politician is being president making it redundant and bad prose to include it in the same sentence. 2 sentence allows a plausible (not saying if weak or strong) argument that "president" in a separate sentence is more detailed explanation of the other sentence mentioning politician. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This really makes sense if you are an English teacher and know how to right swell (write well). Chris H of New York (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You will find that information in the fourth paragraph of the lede. "At age 70, Trump will become the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or governmental service." That wording was chosen after an extensive discussion and is listed at the top of this page under "Current consensuses and RfCs". --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for pointing out that the information was missing from the Election section. I have added the details there, with a reference. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good for the election section. But I do feel that at this point, and given the significance of a non-politician in this day and age being elected to the presidency, that the mention could be adjusted to be very clear about it and also mentioned right away in the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-politician is just a "talking point". Lots of politicians try to understate connections to politics. I think it's fine. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He is only the 5th non-office holder to be elected to the presidency in U.S. history. That seems significant. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He's the first person so old, and the first person so rich, to become president. And the first president-elect who was previously neither in the military or civilian side of government.  This is all handled well in the lead as-is.  Firsts are more important than fifths.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the lead sentence is misleading because Trump only became a politician by running for president. He had dabbled with political statements earlier but that doesn't make him a politician: not only didn't he serve in any government capacity, but he simply never ran for office, despite the buzz in previous election cycles. Now, there were several discussions about Trump's qualifiers and some people feel strongly that he should be defined as a politician because he does politics now, while some others feel just as strongly that he should not be called a politician. I don't see an easy way to get consensus there. My preferred wording would be something like Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, and the President-elect of the United States, scheduled to take office on 20 January 2017. He was elected on November 8, 2016 following an outsider campaign which was his first attempt at gaining political office. Thoughts? — JFG talk 06:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend simply deleting the word "politician" as redundant, since anyone elected president is a politician. As for running an "outsider" campaign, I think that's unnecessary given that we already say in the lead that he's never held any position in government.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This makes a lot of sense. Chris H of New York (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I agree, and I would like it to also say, "he is only the fifth person never to have held elected office before being elected to the presidency." That is a significant and extremely notable for a total non politician to do this. Also, I come down on the side that he was not a politician and, really, still isn't. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There has already been a long debate about whether he was a politician, and the consensus, before he became president, is that he was. There is no point in rerunning that argument now...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Except he was never a politician and that consensus is past. We need a new one. He did not fit the definition of a politician, and when asked he always said he was a businessman, and reliable sources called him that as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What he says about himself is not relevant. People often claim they aren't what they are, or vice versa. He is extremely active in politics. Just as an aside, the Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a politician . Objective3000 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that saying he is a politician is redundant, since he is only a politician because he is the President-elect and we already say that. It would only be justified if he had held other elected positions that were not mentioned.  For example, while we mention in the first sentence that Barack Obama is a politician, we do not mention until several paragraphs later that he was a state senator and U.S. senator.  While I think it would be tendentious to say he is not a politician, this seems like hypercorrection.  TFD (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There exist different levels of politicians and different kinds of businessmen. The first sentence gives general classifications, which are later refined. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with on this. You can schmooze politicians all day long and work a room, that doesn't make you a politician. He was real estate developer. He had to work the room to get permits, variances, tax abatements, all that, but a politician is somebody who holds elective office. Trump never has done. And then to mention that he is only the 5th person a elected to the presidency who never held elected office makes no sense if you start straight off the bat calling him a politician. That sounds like POV editing. The entire campaign was about being an outsider. And you know, Barack Obama was a community organizer for a long time before he ran for the Illinois state house. He was in the legislature. So by then, it would be appropriate to call him a politician, but not before he took office. And I'm sure as a community organizer, he had to work a room, and know all the politicians, and do the schmoozing, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What his campaign was about is not relevant. He has been heavily engaged in politics since he announced. Indeed, during his presidency, he really isn’t supposed to be conducting any business. He is now a politician. Just as Bloomberg is now a politician and, having returned to his business, also a businessman. Objective3000 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can see your point. Having won the election, he's in the thick of it now. You have the game, you have the name. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people seem determined to say that he "isn't a politician", but what does Bush Trump himself say?
 * "You know, I was a very good businessman. Now I am a politician. We will find out if I'm a good politician." --Donald Trump, August 2, 2015
 * "But I guess when you're running for office -- I hate the term politician as it relates to myself. I have never been. I have only been a politician for three months. But, you know, I guess that's what I am right now, unfortunately." -- Donald Trump, September 1, 2015

If he calls himself (or reluctantly admits that he is) a politician, by what possible logic can we omit that from the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , we're not going to eliminate it from the lede. Just sorting things. The quotes are helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you mean Trump not Bush and your fingers slipped . I took the liberty of striking it for you, blatantly ignoring WP:TPO; hope you don't mind. — JFG talk 06:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mental lapse. --MelanieN (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you had a low-energy day… — JFG talk 09:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for proposal
The key to resolving this dispute is recognizing that Trump's life has three major themes: real estate, television and politics. He has been active in real estate for 5 decades, in television for 12 years and in politics for a year and a half (discounting some occasional political statements made earlier to journalists, when he never actually ran for office). Following those facts, I believe the lead sentence should include those three themes in order of weight in Trump's life, viz.

Can we agree on this and settle the lead sentence for good? — JFG talk 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current version is this: "Donald Trump is an American politician, businessman, television personality, and President-elect of the United States, scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017." This seems preferable to the proposed version for several reasons, as follows. First, I don't think it's correct to say that he's "serving" as President-elect, because I'm not aware that a President-elect is employed by the federal government or draws any salary or has any legal duties, and the next milestone is on Jan. 6 when Congress meets to officially certify the results of the electoral college vote, overseen by Vice President Biden, as mandated by the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."  Second, I don't see why we shouldn't continue to mention that he will be the 45th President, and that he'll be sworn in on January 20.  Third, we should speak in present tense about his professions, and so I don't think we have to worry about listing his professions chronologically.  The only change that I recommend is to delete the word "politician" because it tells the reader nothing that is not already included in the fact that he is going to be president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See amended version below, where "serving" is removed until inauguration. To answer your second point, this is just a proposal for the first sentence of the lead; the next sentence would still say He is scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017. The ordering of professions is still being debated below. — JFG talk 10:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I like your two versions, JFG, except that I don't like "serving as". I like the basic layout we have had for a long time, although the exact wording (businessman or real estate developer?) has often been tweaked. In the case of your chosen wording it would be "American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States." This follows the pattern of the Obama article: "is an American politician and the 44th and current President of the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe the current version (American politician, businessman, television personality, and PEOTUS) is absolutely correct. The order should not be "weight" according to what he has done in his life, but "weight" according to which are currently the most significant. The exception, of course, is the bit about being PEOTUS. I don't mind seeing "real estate developer" instead of "businessman", but the order should remain the same. I would be very opposed indeed to any change of this order, and I think most people support this order because it has been the most stable for quite some time. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I like it. It should be in the order he has lived his life. Real estate developer, television personality, and politician, and (on January 20) the 45th President of the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should it be in the order he lived his life? Why not the order which is most biographically significant? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * On thinking it over I actually prefer Scjessey's version (which is also the current version), although I would also accept JFG's without the "serving as" language. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be in the order he did things because politician is not his most biographically significant part of his life. Winning the presidency as a real estate developer is. For his entire life he has been a real estate developer. From age 5 when his father took him to work and put him up on a bulldozer. He wasn't a politician before running for the presidency. He's the fifth non-office holder to win the presidency. It's undue weight to call him a politician before all the accomplishments in his life. I doubt anyone would have voted for him had he not been first and foremost a real estate developer. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Trump is probably the second most powerful politician in the world and about to become the most powerful, and so the fact that he is a politician isby far the most biographically significant fact of his entire life as it stands right now. WP:WEIGHT talks about "prominence of placement", and given that the vast majority of reliable sources covering Trump discuss the act of running for president above anything else, by several orders of magnitude, it is clear that the rule is satisfied by putting "politician" first. Seriously folks, this shouldn't even be up for discussion. And didn't we do this already? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel right about it because his whole life before this run for the presidency was about his obsession with his real estate business. He was always on CNBC not NBC unless it was his reality show, The Apprentice, which is all about business. No, I would agree John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were politicians, and consummate at it, but not Donald Trump. Every book he wrote was about business, the art of the deal. He is a johhny come lately to politics. He went to Wharton, not for the prestige, but because they had a few courses on real estate where other B-schools did not. No, his whole life has been business, and it certainly shows. There is no reliable source prior to his run that establishes him as a politician. And btw, if you look closely at that coverage you're talking about, it refers to his being an "outsider," the non-politician, the non-office holder. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * While we were discussing, User:Chris H of New York unilaterally changed the lede sentence. It now reads "is an American politician, businessman, and television personality. He is President-elect of the United States and is scheduled to take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017." I think we really need to agree on a wording and then lock it in; the lede has been changed multiple times a day for weeks now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Amended proposal
WINNER ...THIS IS THE WINNING PROPOSAL, B. NO CONSENSUS BUT THE AGREED UPON WINNER. Samswik (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that "serving as" makes no sense during the transition. I imagine we can easily get consensus on replacing "businessman" by "real estate developer" and on keeping both "television personality" and "politician" as the key qualifiers. The only point of dispute remains the order. I stand by my position that real estate must come first. Leaving politician third is more correct with regards to Trump's whole life and it blends in more naturally with his eventual accession to the Presidency. Putting politician first gives the casual reader an impression that Trump was a career politician who managed real estate projects on the side, whereas the exact opposite is true. — JFG talk 09:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. He's been in real estate his entire life. And you are right, the progression to politician and then the presidency is exactly how it happened. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If "politician" is at the end, then it will be smack next to president, which makes it even more obviously redundant. The word "politician" is not a very neutral word either.   Per dictionary, one definition of a politician is, "2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: 'Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process' (John F. Kennedy)." That's from American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Or consider this dictionary definition: "2 ... b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons". Merriam Webster Dictionary 2011.  You can hear in Trump's self-identification that he is certainly not boasting about being a politician.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Politician" is in the lede sentence, immediately adjacent to "XXth president of the United States", for pretty much all other presidents. It's not a redundancy, it's a definition. And regardless of whether Trump is proud of it or ashamed of it, he still admits that he is one. (Are we in the habit of putting into the lede sentence only descriptions that the subject himself would boast of?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, I still don't like "serving as". The format we have used during previous presidencies would suggest saying "Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States." Even better, "Donald Trump is an American politician, real estate developer, television personality, and the 45th and current President of the United States." --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. In thinking about why I don't like "serving as" the president: aside from it being a departure from what we usually say, it almost seems to be a way to try to distance ourselves from saying/confirming/admitting that he IS the president. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:MelanieN, That's because those presidents were all politicians. Trump's situation is unique, Merriam Webster, notwithstanding. This is a different case. He wasn't a politician, he held no elective office, he did not spend his life seeking political office.  "Donald Trump is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States." SW3 5DL (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Too many "ands". Try "and currently the 45th...." Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, "45th and current" would be more compatible with the way we have done previous presidents. SW3, he may not have been a politician up until two years ago - but he is one now, by his own admission. But I really don't care where in the sentence "politician" goes, I will accept it either first or last. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I like last in order to show all that came before he got there. Also, Melanie, on the prior military service or governmental service, governmental service doesn't mean elected office. I commented in another thread about that. People can perform governmental service through appointed, not elected office. The importance for Trump is that he's never held elected office before being elected president. That's really very rare. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We discussed all this before, as you know; see consensus #8. "Never held elected office" is pretty rare: he is the fifth. "Never held any government office at all" is more rare: he is the third. "Has neither government nor military experience" is unique; he is the first. That's why it goes in the lede. (Also, that is the point that Reliable Sources emphasized.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's fine with me then. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer this:

I continue to believe "politician" is by far the most significant biographical detail, because that is what he is currently. Note the addition of "former". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As has already been discussed at length, his entire life is as a real estate developer. He's only been a politician for 18 months. It upends the apple cart to pretend the last 65 years didn't happen. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "former" is a good addition and I am going to take the liberty of adding it to the article even though this discussion is ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you think about it. I just strongly disagree. The most significant thing should appear first, and going by the preponderance of reliable sources it should be "politician". I'm sure Trump and his supporters don't like that he is now a politician, but that's just the way it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think it's really due weight. His life has been as a non-politician. This isn't about what Trump and/or his people would want. He admits he's now a politician. But it was only because he had to run for office as a party member, in this case the Republican party, that qualifies him as a politician. ". . .real estate developer, former television personality, politician and 45th president of the United States." SW3 5DL (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But due weight refers to coverage in reliable sources, not how long. He is currently a politician and the sources all support this overwhelmingly. He is first and foremost a politician because he's been elected to arguably the highest level of political office in the world. Not having politician first is illogical. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has a lifetime of reliable sources that call him a real estate developer. You want to isolate the last 18 months. That's not due weight, that's POV. And you are ignoring completely that the reliable sources also called him the outsider because he was not a politician. For that matter, his lede sentence could well say, "businessman, former reality television star, and political outsider. . . SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some teacher (usernamen), maybe in Germany, raises a good point about politician and President as redundant but the "serving as" version fixes that. Some may look at it as an odd sentence. My vote is the redundancy issue is real, serving as is ok with me with the footnote that it is slightly unusual. My suggestion is to add "politician" on January 19, 2018 because he would have been president a year, fully enough to offset his claim of not being a politician. He certianly isn't a career politician with previous offices. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Remaining issues
I think we are this close to agreement on the lede sentence. As I see it there are two issues remaining. Let's isolate them and make a simple up-or-down statement to see how close we are to consensus (while continuing to discuss in the section above). --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Should "politician" come first or last in the description in the lede sentence?
 * I will accept consensus either way on this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If politician is included, it should go first, because it is much more obviously redundant if it's immediately before "president".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another good point. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that no matter how long he lives, he will be called President Trump. Objective3000 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But, including "politician" is completely redundant. Here's what reliable sources say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Last – From a biographical standpoint, it makes a lot more sense because he turned politician just before his accession to the presidency vs 5 decades in real estate and 12 years on TV. The claimed redundancy of "politician and President" doesn't bother me because "politician" is an activity and "President" is a position. — JFG talk 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Should we call him a "real estate developer" or a "businessman"?
 * I prefer "businessman" because it encompasses all his other non-real-estate activities (and because that's how he always describes himself), but I will accept either. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Businessman is broader, so better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure it’s accurate to say real-estate developer is most of his business career. Trump Airline, Trump clothing, Trump Mortgage, Trump Ice, Trump Winery, Trump Steaks, GoTrump (travel agency), Trump Vodka, Trump the Game, Trump Magazine, Trump University, USFL, Tour de Trump (bike races), Trump on the Ocean (restaurant/catering), Trump Network (nutritional supplements), Trumped! (radio show), The Apprentice, The beauty pageants, Trump New Media (video-on-demand and ISP). He certainly developed real-estate, although most of the buildings that sport his name were not developed by him. His primary business appears to be branding. That certainly makes him a businessman. But, US President seems to trump (sorry) all the rest. Objective3000 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a very valid point. Businessman would seem to be the logical choice here, although I would argue we could add "vexatious litigant" and a few other choice examples of negative nomenclature. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He is (was?) first and foremost a real estate developer: he has lived and breathed real estate his whole life. All the Trump-branded ventures you list were marginal except The Apprentice franchise. Most of them were operated by others and are now closed, whereas Trump's real estate empire is here to stay, probably under his children's management. Therefore, "real estate developer" is a more accurate description of Trump's business career than the generic "businessman" descriptor. — JFG talk 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do believe that is what he is known as. These other businesses are simply a way to extend his brand. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The bit about being redundant to say politician before president makes no sense. President Obama's BLP says "American politician and the 44th president. . .". He is first and foremost a real estate developer but businessman will work. . SW3 5DL (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Obama BLP is not a reliable source. Here's what reliable sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up
This discussion kind of died out. We are close to consensus, except that the "where to put the word politician?" question is still unresolved. I propose we just leave the lede sentence as it is for the next week, and concentrate instead on what it's going to say after January 20. It would be nice to get an actual consensus so we can add it to the "consensuses" list above and stabilize the article. We seem to have two proposals:
 * A. Donald Trump is an American politician, businessman, former television personality, and the 45th and current President of the United States.
 * B. Donald Trump is an American businessman, former television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

Please comment below. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason it has come down to the politician bit is that nobody's agreed on the due weight. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And what is YOUR opinion? --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Modified B - Minus "and current", per discussion below. "Politician" is the least significant of the three in the totality of his life. As said elsewhere, he isn't in it because of his dedication to public service. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A - WP:WEIGHT does not apply here, since it refers to inclusion/exclusion (everyone has agreed on inclusion) and prominence (moving it around within a phrase doesn't really change its prominence except in the minds of people who seem convinced he isn't a politician). So it boils down to convention (most politicians on Wikipedia have "politician" first in their descriptions) and current status (he will have actively stepped away from his business affairs to focus on being a full-time politician). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. This is who Donald Trump is. Becoming a politician was simply a means to an end. Being in the political arena was not something he spent his life doing. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B but drop "and current" for the sake of simplicity. I also would like a discussion on replacing "businessman" with the more precise "real estate developer". There have been valid arguments both ways and I'm not convinced this is settled yet. — JFG talk 21:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "45th and current" seems to be our standard practice; you will observe it currently at Barack Obama. "Businessman vs. real estate developer" was the other "not yet settled" remaining issue I identified in the section just above this one. That discussion mostly favored "businessman" (4 to 2, one of which was you) so I was hoping we could move on from that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "and current", the wording is clumsy, and a sample size of one cannot be considered "standard practice"; the presidential transition is a good time to simplify this formulation. Re: "businessman" vs "real estate developer", I'm fine with keeping "businessman" now for the sake of expediency, however I would probably want to launch a wider debate after the inauguration. — JFG talk 22:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current is not at all necessary. He'll be the only 45th. There's no other 45th to come before or after him. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again I object to the assertion of any standard practice that is not a guideline, RfC outcome, etc., per WP:OSE. Doing so tends to stifle the evolution of the encyclopedia, as these "standard practices" become more and more entrenched. It makes it very difficult for new and better ideas to become accepted, if they are dismissed because they are not "standard practice". Unless the community says otherwise in a guideline, RfC, etc., what other editors have done at other articles should have zero effect on what we do at this article. Usually such a community consensus is reserved for cases where cross-article consistency actually benefits readers. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "and current" was not in any previous discussion; I just added it following the Obama model. If people would prefer to leave it out that's OK. I'll strike it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * B (weakly) - I didn't see any guidance on order of titles from WP:BLP or WP:LEAD, and would tend to list positions in order of perceived importance except that (1) he just doesn't feel like firstly a politician or predominantly one, and (b) I did see counter-examples at Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono and Ross Perot of people known for other things than being a politician did not list it first in their Bio. Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

vote should wait and restart
MelanieN is an administrator and deciding on what to vote for but this is premature. Just nail down a few issues first before rushing to a vote. For example, Scjessey mentions putting litigant in the lede. I think that will probably be shot down but why make that assumption? Let's try to summarize some issues as follows ..... it shouldn't take more than a few days Samswik (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading the discussion, I see some issues have been ignored, maybe by error, but saying we are close to consensus is just the administrator's opinion.

Unresolved are


 * call him a litigant. (Probably the easiest to discard but I assume nothing).


 * call him a politician or not. JFG opposes it but gives a sample where it is in a second sentence with a phrase to explain it. Chris New York and Usernamen1 state a similar point. Some support this if politician has to be used at all.


 * JFG offers a compromise and there are few compromises proposed so a lot of weight and discussion should be given to compromise proposals. The vote A and Baby by MelanieN are too similar that it gives false confidence that there was a vote when the vote just excluded most proposals from the ballot.


 * grammar. Some reference to redundancy but that is hard for me to explain without cut and paste so I won't.


 * former. Use it or not. It's used for TV personality but on January 20, will also apply to businessman.


 * businessperson? My guess is that sexism is still ingrained so that word isn't liked, but nobody has weighed in.


 * real estate developer? Some discussion but not a lot. My guess is it won't be in the lede but let's nail it down.


 * order? Nobody has said to put President first. Think hard about this.

Ok, this can be quick but since the whole matter is so lng, why not get it right the first time. Samswik (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinion, please, from other people: Is it really necessary to start this process all over from the beginning? Are all of these points really still in dispute? (I mean, seriously - "vexatious litigant" was obviously a POV or humorous suggestion, not a serious proposal.) We have been trying, gradually, for weeks now to narrow down the options. If I have been pushing too hard or dominating the process, I will step aside and let someone else do the tallying and narrowing down. But I really hate to flush all the weeks of discussion and start over. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. And if we are going to start over, should we start a new section the bottom of the page for greater visibility? As if all the previous discussion never happened? --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. At this point we have four "B", one "A", and one or two "none of the above." --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Recommend shutting it down as no consensus. Wait until July 2017 (i.e six months), before bringing the topic up again. Trump is currently in the process of becoming US President. This article likewise is going through a transition. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not on shutting it down. Unless you want an RfC, then this is the consensus. It's B, as far as I can see. It should be implemented. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN: You have not been "pushing too hard or dominating the process". You are one of the few taking the initiative to guide processes to consensuses, and lazy people like me have been more than happy to let you do so. We should not discard weeks of progress because someone new (and I do mean new) happens along and criticizes that work, twice citing your adminship as if that had some relevance. Their comment "it shouldn't take more than a few days" alone shows a lack of perspective. Proceed please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally there is no time limit and we can take as long as we want. But I think it's important for us to have a consensus sentence ready to insert on January 20. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true about the time limit, but in this case, as you point out, the 20th is coming, and it needs to be in place. I agree with Mandruss. I see no reason to chuck all the work that's gone before because someone who did not contribute earlier wants to wait until July??? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to go ahead with option B. The long prior discussions (and occasional edit-warring) among dozens of editors have established consensus on everything except the ordering of titles, and now this final poll shows a good majority for the B ordering. The opinion of those who are still interested at this late stage are valid to represent a distillation of the opinions of the aforementioned dozens of people. New participants are entitled to start a new discussion from scratch and invoke WP:CCC after the current discussion has come to a close; we will gladly participate in such a new debate, time and motivation permitting. For now, I shall apply version B to the text (yes, it can be done even before inauguration day) and I'll let another participant close this section. — JFG talk 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
It is possible this has been forgotten because it is so far up the talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have posted a note at the bottom of this page, calling attention to this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)