Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 51

Election summary in lead: further actions
Trying to summarize where we are standing after the latest round of discussion:
 * The paragraph summarizing the election in the lead should remain short;
 * Most of the current wording is stable and agreed upon;
 * The last part mentioning the popular vote situation keeps being discussed.

There are three proposals on the table on how to phrase this last part: plus the status quo option:
 * (A) the fifth elected with a smaller share of the popular vote
 * (B) the fifth to lose the popular vote
 * (C) the fifth to receive fewer votes than his opponent
 * (S) the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote

Judging by the perennial re-ignition of this debate, it seems that the (S) option is unsatisfactory to a number of regular editors and new readers coming to the talk page; however it was also deemed "not too bad" and the last RfC resulted in no consensus, so we kept the status quo. There is also agreement that circuitous discussion among a small group of regulars here has reached the limits of the consensus-building effort, becoming repetitive and counter-productive. The logical next step would be to submit one or several variants above to RfC. My opinion is that any RfC should offer a binary choice, otherwise it is pretty much guaranteed to end up with no consensus again. No matter what we do next, the goal should be to establish a firm enough consensus about this phrasing so it can be confidently listed in the section.


 * Comment: JFG. You said, "Judging by the perennial re-ignition of this debate. ... You are the one perennially setting the match to it. Please stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The prior long debate was started by  and I didn't make a single comment there. And the latest thread  was in fact started by… yourself! — JFG talk 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not true. I reverted changes made to the article that did not have consensus and mentioned it on the talk page. Anythingyouwant then went on to pursue changes and was not successful. Immediately after he left the page, YOU then opened up the Consensus proposal," section above, and you offered a new version. Not me. And note well, you offered two suggestions that say the same thing with a small word change, fewer to smaller. Then you suggested another RfC because it was clear to you those suggestions had no support, while the one I offered was gaining support. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with offering a potential consensus wording after reading a debate? I though that's the reason we have Talk pages… And my suggesting an RfC was actually inspired by your suggesting an RfC last time. The only difference is that you rushed your preferred versions to RfC whereas I'm asking the regulars whether they think the time is right to open an RfC. I would appreciate if you stopped criticizing my actions, up to (for what offense?), and focus on gaining consensus about the text instead, irrespective of who proposed which version. — JFG talk 22:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Now, let's take a poll for what to do next: What do you all think? — JFG talk 11:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1: do nothing, stop discussing this;
 * Option 2: pick the "best two" variants among A, B and C, and submit them to RfC; if one of them wins, it gains established consensus status, otherwise nothing changes;
 * Option 3: pick only one of the A B C variants at random (say A), and pit it against status quo S in an RfC; if that fails, repeat with variant B; if that fails, repeat with variant C; if that fails, S remains and gains established consensus status;
 * Option 4: eliminate one of the ABC variants by local consensus of regulars, then apply option 3 with the two remaining variants.
 * Poll responses
 * Option 2, submitting B and C to RfC. — JFG talk 11:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 5 - delete this unnecessary and overcomplicated new section that actually misses other wording choices and continue the discussion in the previous section! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Best Option: Support topic ban for JFG. At this very moment, the article needs emergent attention as it is on the brink, stuffed as it is with nit-picking nonsense edits. This is another example of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the above Continue the discussion above, where we are very close to choosing an option we can all live with. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd love it if we all "regulars" could agree on a wording (although from experience I doubt we can), but that would still have to go to RfC to establish firm consensus. And we do have an option we can all live with: it's called "Option 1" in the poll, do nothing. — JFG talk 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The current wording is the worst of all possible options in my book, so it is not something I can "live with" if I can help it. Anyhow, in discussion above we have pretty much agreed on Option B (reluctantly in some cases, but still accepted) and we should be about ready to move forward with an RfC pitting Option B vs. Option S. I don't think we need to start the winnowing-down process all over again; we have been doing that for many thousands of words already. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the (S) version is awkward, but the fact is we have been living with it for quite some time now, much though we'd like to have something more elegant eventually. About the RfC, although many editors have shown flexibility on the exact wording, I think there is a fundamental chasm between those who want to state the notion of winning or losing the popular vote and those who can't support giving such weight to this non-existent contest in the US presidential system. Which is why I suggest to pit a "lost popular vote" version against a "gained fewer votes" version in a widely-advertised RfC, to settle this once and for all. The best two wordings for those two views of the world are imho B and C, which is why I suggested putting those up. — JFG talk 21:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG, I seem to remember that there were multiple variations proposed on the "fewer votes," "smaller share", etc. approach. Was there ever a consensus for some version of that - comparable to the consensus several of us finally reached on "fifth to lose the popular vote"? Were there multiple people proposing "fewer", "smaller", etc. versions, and did they reach agreement on how to word it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading the latest round of discussion, I see that the "fewer votes" version (C) was supported by, , yourself and myself + opposed by , whereas the "lost popular vote" version (B) was supported by yourself, Scjessey, SW3 5DL and , and rejected by me. That's 4 "regulars" supporting and 1 opposing each version, with an overlap of 2 people who would support both. We can scrap the "smaller share" version (A) because it evolved into the "fewer votes" version (C) in the discussion (same meaning, more support). Again, this shows that we should put (B) and (C) to an RfC focusing on the merits of the message conveyed (lost the popular vote or received fewer votes), not to nitpick on the exact wording which is imho clear and concise in both variants. — JFG talk 05:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I slightly prefer B, I'm OK with B or C. Objective3000 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying; so we are standing at +4 -1 for (B) and +5 -1 for (C), with an overlap of 3 people. Methinks the RfC should be restarted cleanly with options B and C to choose from, and then we can relax for 30 days until the outcome is settled…, what do you think? — JFG talk 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What would we do about the people who have already !voted in the malformed RfC below? --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply ping them to !vote again. — JFG talk 20:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We're not going back to 'fewer.' He did not get fewer votes. He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. In other words, "he lost the popular vote," which Melanie has already agreed to in the RfC. Leave it be. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Or in other words, he got 3 million fewer votes. There are two ways to say it, but one focuses on the vote count while the other focuses on winning/losing something. I know your opinion and you know mine, regulars are roughly evenly split, so putting these two versions to RfC sounds to me like the best way to cement a defensible consensus and move on. — JFG talk 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . . .and the fifth to lose the popular vote gets ride of plurality, and would settle it for good, imo, since "fewer' or 'smaller' will invite changes. "and the fifth after losing the popular vote' is misleading. He won the election because he won the Electoral College not because he lost the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, SW3, those of us who preferred "after losing" have agreed (in some cases grudgingly) to settle for "lost" just to get this thing over. "After losing" doesn't even seem to be on the table any more. There is no need for you to continue to argue that point, and it could become annoying if you continue to do so. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? What are you talking about? You're responding to a post made 2 days ago. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pay attention to the time stamp. Both you and JFG have displaced my comment and you are responding to it as I just commented to both your newest posts. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, you wrote: "He did not get fewer votes." Actually he did get fewer votes from voters. The popular vote represents the actual number of votes cast in the election.

(Well, that's not really true, because the exit polls tell that story. Also, several million voters were prevented from voting, most of whom would have voted blue. That's known as voter suppression. Because of the consistent "red shift", blue states, where most voters actually voted blue, still ended up with red majority counts, so something happened between the exit polls and the final counts, something that cannot be explained by simple counting errors. This has been going on in all elections every two years since at least 2000, and it always goes from blue to red. That's why experts on exit polls don't use the term "blue shift". It doesn't exist. If the difference was because of counting errors, it would also favor blue at times, but it always favors red, so the GOP has totally rigged the system, and those who are elected benefited from it. They are the only ones who can change that, so they won't do it.)

So we have the final votes by voters giving a significant majority to Clinton, but because of the way the electoral college system works (for example, in Wyoming one voter equals four votes ), when the electors met later, they gave a majority to Trump. A candidate who understands this system is wise to cater to the small states where voters have more voting power.

So Trump DID get fewer votes...from voters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2017
Where it sates many of his class were false in the introductory paragraphs, please change it to "some" and say "allegedly," as it is a matter of political opinion. trainsandtech (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template..  P p p er y 22:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Declined. Please see Consensus #7 under Current consensuses above. ) --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

problematic source regarding Trump having loans in Russia
There is a TIME magazine source in the section Ties To Russia that says Trump had a bankruptcy so American banks refused to lend him anymore money so he had to get loans in Russia.

First, why would Russians give him loans? Russia isn't a rich country even today. In the early 1990s Russia's economy was in the toilet and a tiny fraction the size of America's economy at the time. And why would Russians lend money to an American if Americans would not do so?

Second, in the early 1990s Yeltsin was in power. Putin was not a high ranking government official at the time. This source mentions these Russian financiers were in the close circle of Putin rather than Yeltsin. Now that makes no sense at all.

Third, no names of the Russian financiers were mentioned. So it appears this source is dubious at best, and the information presented is not accurate or even not factual.

I suggest double check that source http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

I appears to be a hit piece during the election that not only makes zero sense, but also lacks credibility especially considering it hides the names of the supposed Russian financiers it knows so well about.

216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Time article quotes an L.A. Times article: "Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies." Is there some reason to suspect that either Time magazine or the L.A. Times is lying about this? Generally they are considered reliable sources. I don't see how failure to name specific Russian financiers makes either source "dubious". Sundayclose (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it mention when this supposed event supposedly took place? Trump's bankruptcies were in the early 1990s. At the time, Russia just emerged from the dissolution of USSR and its economy was in the toilet and it was undergoing turmoil, having no constitution. If Americans did not lend to him, why would Russians lend to him considering Russians had very little funds to spare on an American. Furthermore, post the early 1990s Trump did very well in business and had no more bankruptcies and began to quickly expand his businesses. Third, Putin was nowhere close to being in the high levels of government in the early 1990s, so why would these supposed Russians who lent money to Trump be close to Putin? None of this story makes any logical sense whatsoever.

216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Concluding that Russia's economy was bad and therefore no Russian would finance Trump is quite a leap of logic, not to mention a gross violation of WP:SYN. A bad economy does not prevent individual investors who may have lots of money despite the economy from doing whatever they wish with their money. Again, do you have any specific evidence that Time magazine or the L.A. Times lied? Or do you have specific evidence that contradicts the sources? We need a lot more here than your speculative assumptions to remove a well sourced statement. Sundayclose (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Time source has inadequate information, suggesting it is a lying hit piece. No names. No dates. No nothing. If it is genuine, why hide? Considering during an election politicians pay big money to come up with hit pieces, we at wikipedia have every right to be careful and vet sources before including them in an article, even if an article was published in a RS, rather than blindly including any source that was published in an RS.

216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This IP user is just a "mainstream media is fake news!" stuck on repeat mode. Stop feeding it and move on, this is not valid criticism of a source. TheValeyard (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Loans from national banks are public information. If Trump does or did have loans in Russia, yeah, people would know about. Since no one knows about it, that means this source is fake and Trump never had loans in Russia. Simple as a b c. 216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think you are sincere but you are giving us nothing but your opinions that the sources are lying or that no Russian would have financed Trump. Wikipedia doesn't work that way because it is original research. You or anyone has the right to doubt anything, but without a reliable source to back up your opinions, like all our opinions they are meaningless on Wikipedia. I have a lot of opinions about the content of Wikipedia, but if I don't have a reliable source to back up my opinions I keep them to myself. If we wrote articles based on individual editors' opinions, Wikipedia would be a chaotic mess. I hope you will read a few articles to see how reliable sources work. You might be able to make some good contributions. Thanks for expressing your opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is based on semantics. Nobody says that Trump has loans from the Russian government or a Russian national bank (if there is such a thing). What he does have, and it has been reported by many sources, is large loans from wealthy individuals in Russia (what are referred to as oligarchs). When he says he has no connections with "Russia" he may be speaking the truth. But he has many, many financial connections with "Russians". Even his son has admitted that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Widely reported in RS, along with discussion that such loans are not subject to any governmental regulation and that they are not subject to credit or capital requirements of regulated banks. Also, there's really no particular problem with one dude borrowing some coin from another.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, there's really no particular problem with one dude borrowing some coin from another. Assuming no sanctions problems, efforts to hide liabilities, or efforts to hide conflicts of interest. Not saying any of these exist in this case. Objective3000 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, that was good restore of important and well sourced info. This conflict of interest has been reported so widely. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree the restoration of this section was appropriate and it is important to have such a section. However, I felt the section as it stood was poorly organized and didn't even make clear why we were including it. I have proposed a rewrite; see above under "Proposed rewrite". --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In this case an article by Jeff Nesbit, a free lance author, in Time Magazine quotes an op-ed (clearly labelled as such) by Max Boot in the LA Times. The relevant policy is "News organizations."  Whether or not the assertions are true, they must be treated as opinions, not facts, of partisan writers.  TFD (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Nesbit/Time article is not cited in the current (rewritten) paragraph. Neither is the Max Boot op-ed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition
May I add the following to this article? No matter about the past, President Trump said clearly during his press conference that he has no dealings with Russia. I think it is important to take him at his word instead of arranging a bunch of sentences like we have in Donald_Trump that never reach a conclusion. I hope NPR is acceptable as a news source: they published a transcript and I don't know of any criticism of their reporting by either the right or left. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What Trump said in that quote is not a rebuttal to the sources given in Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, which detail 3 decades of meetings, trips, proposals and failed initiatives. Trump's rebuttal seems to be a straw-man argument, honestly. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this should be added to the article Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, if it hasn't been already. I also think it should be added to our existing paragraph - without removing any of the existing material. But let's talk about that paragraph in our article. It certainly doesn't deserve a level-one heading of its own. Maybe it could be a subsection under "careers" or the "election" section? --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on inclusion, and also on the level-one heading, and the content overall. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you can improve this I hope you will. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Should be added, but the section needs to be re-titled and re-written. Trump has no affiliations with Russia, although he has had business dealings with people in Russian although fewer than he has had with people in Canada, the UK and many other countries.  It is an allegation against him and should be treated as such.  TFD (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose — A primary source, and is rebutted by numerous reliable secondary sources. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See Fact-checking Donald Trump's Feb. 16 press conference — Politifact
 * Umm, what are you opposing? The proposal here is to include Donald Trump's own comment about connection with Russia. He would normally be allowed to speak for himself though a primary source. You think we should not allow him to speak? Has his disavowal been "rebutted"? --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its inclusion of course. He is allowed to speak for himself, but there is no reason why this merits inclusion on Wikipedia — especially as there is evidence of a him expressing a large degree of falsehood. Better to cite sources that are known to be reliable — which in this case indicate what was said is likely false or at least dubious. As it stands you are including an objectively unreliably source; which is only subjectively notable — without giving as much as a nod to reliably sourced refutation. While there may not be articles refuting this specific iteration of the claim, it's been repeated over and over — and any reliably sourced refutation is enough. In its current form the section is WP:UNDUE.
 * See:
 * Fact-checking Trump's claim that he has no business ties to Russia Vox
 * Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin — Washington Post
 * What's also notable is how the statement is a tautology — if we're to take him by his word that he has left, resigned, stepped down, or passed on ownership of all his companies — that means  he has no business dealings anywhere . This clearly does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We do report, in multiple articles, that he said he was resigning all management positions with his companies, but that he is retaining his ownership interests. He still has plenty of business interests. Following the lead of Reliable Sources, we report his saying that he does not have an active management role in his businesses. But he still owns them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What about changing it to "Alleged ties to Russia." SW3 5DL (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CF. Keiiri (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The title of the section has been changed to "Ties to Russia" which is better IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think his ties to Russia are too well established for that. Some of the ties are through third parties, but there is plenty of evidence for his own direct connections. For example, holding a beauty pageant in Russia is a tie, isn't it? And we have the word of Donald Trump Jr. that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yupp, the existence of ties is not alleged. Their implications are debatable, but not their existence. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A beauty pageant 'tie' is a business tie. It does not make him a member of the Russian government. All I'm suggesting is that it be clear we are not suggestion any tie to the government. He is not a secret agent, he is not from Russia, he has no family in Russia. He did what other business leaders have done, he took advantage of the business opportunities in Russia. .SW3 5DL (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not entirely correct, as much business-folk avoid Russia — in large part because being successful (that is turning a profit) is said to require going through the Russian government. In addition to that most (if not all) oligarchs have direct ties to the Kremlin, which means that any business-associate large enough to deal with Trump constitutes a government tie. There are ample sources stating this, and I would believe you were at least aware of the position. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 21:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Navigating a country's policies for doing business inside that country does not make any businessman a member of that country's government. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) Your logical fallacy is: strawman. Nobody has claimed that he is a "member of the Russian government" or a "secret agent" or "from Russia" or any of that. There is nothing in the article, or in this discussion, to suggest anything like this. We are pointing out the obvious, well documented fact that he has TIES to Russia. He certainly seems to have business ties, as well as more personal ties through third parties. He has denied having any business ties to Russia (specifically that he owns nothing there, has no loans there, and has no deals there; that could be strictly true and yet leave open other possible ties). I would like to include his denial in the article for balance, but there is not yet consensus in this discussion to do so. -MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. SW3, did you leave out the word "not" from your last sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. What I meant is that it seems it can be construed as Trump colluding with the Russians, as some news outlets and politicians are suggesting. That's their strawman, not mine. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has said that Trump was a member of the Russian government. When it comes to aspects of doing business in Russia, all one needs to do is look to the sources. A good overview, which does not relate to Trump states:
 * That article may give you an inkling as to what is meant when articles discussing Trumps Russian business ties state they are embroidled with government. Quite a few newspapers have referred to that paper. A simpler overview may be from the NYT Pervasive Corruption in Russia Is 'Just Called Business'
 * I'm not linking these because I'm suggesting they belong in the article or provide in-depth analysis of Trump's dealings, but they may give some insight. Other articles are less in depth about these issues, but relate more strongly to Trump's connections.
 * Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a decision been taken to delete SusanLesch's edit here? It seemed it was okay early on, but as far as removing, it seems that's not been decided yet, the arguments against are still ongoing, or so I thought. What is the objection at Trump speaking for himself? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There has not been a decision. SusanLesch added it; Carl Fredrik deleted it; per the Discretionary Sanctions we will need consensus before we can re-add it. I personally don't understand the objections to it, but discussion is still ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw, I didn't re-add per the ds. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"C-class. The article may ... need editing for ... balance ... or contain policy violations, such as bias." The sources in this particular section date back no further than six months, a common sign of a news spike. As for the image (dated February 16), I think it helps a dispassionate reader understand why the article itself has occasional overtones of spirited protest. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi all. Sorry I had never heard of discretionary sanctions until now. This policy sounds all right to me, in that a minority view can conceivably prevail. Please correct me if I overlooked something, but Carl Fredrik seems to be the only person here who disagrees with including the quote. Carl, I don't live in a country in which the president is not a reliable source, and I think any reporter working for any reliable source is as likely to speak with a forked tongue as he is (you might recall for example, Judith Miller and The New York Times). You have cited several secondary discussions of the press conference. I am in favor of any one of them as long as some of the president's actual words are part of what we add. Also, per WP:WELLKNOWN, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." (Here by "reported" the guidelines mean included.) So I leave it to you. Can you please select a source that you like and re-add the quote? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is at least one other use above opposing the passage. I think a quote is undue in part because it carries with it a lot of rhetoric and the article is already running rather long. I would prefer something like:
 * Thoughts? Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Instead of paraphrasing him and then immediately, in the same sentence, contradicting him, we should use his actual quote and let it stand. The previous information in the paragraph has already explained his previous business dealings in detail, it would be UNDUE to expound it again just as a way of rebutting him. (P.S. His quote is very short and simple; it does not contain "a lot of rhetoric"; and your paraphrase-plus-rebuttal is actually longer.) I think we should re-insert his quote at the end of the paragraph.--MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. The proposed edit sounds like we're saying we don't believe his statement because sources can prove he's a liar and they can prove he's always been in cahoots with the Russians. Support reinstating quote at end of paragraph as MelanieN suggests. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what we're saying. There is too little mention of Russian business dealings as is, and we are only aggravating this problem by including his statement — especially so as it is WP:RECENTISM. He's said this more than once, why choose to include it now? Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi CFCF. To answer your question, I proposed this now because the press conference where he said this was the first of his presidency (or at least the first one I noticed). I agree with MelanieN and SW3 5DL. Your suggestion started out helpful but got derailed at "however multiple sources...". Using Reuters, which is an independent agency as far as I know, how about the following? Much shorter than your proposal. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi CFCF. To answer your question, I proposed this now because the press conference where he said this was the first of his presidency (or at least the first one I noticed). I agree with MelanieN and SW3 5DL. Your suggestion started out helpful but got derailed at "however multiple sources...". Using Reuters, which is an independent agency as far as I know, how about the following? Much shorter than your proposal. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This quote looks representative and WP:DUE to me. Trump has repeated this stance dozens of times, so that an attributed direct quote is better than paraphrase-plus-weaseling-innuendo. We should present the accusations and the denials equally; readers can make up their mind without hand-holding. — JFG talk 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is appropriate, because it entirely ignores all the reliably sourced comments discussing how Trump has done quite a lot of business with Russia — and how if we are to take him by his word, should not even be aware of whether he has deals with Russia or not. Two strong sources that could be used:
 * For Trump, Three Decades of Chasing Deals in Russia — NY Times
 * Contradicting Trump on Russia: Russian Officials — NY Times — actually discusses his recent quote and why it is incorrect:

Best, Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 10:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Carl Fredrik, please stop trying to include a rebuttal as part of Trump's denials. The Russian officials, the FBI revelations, the comment by Donald Trump Jr., the longstanding Russia connections of Rex Tillerson - these things are already in the paragraph, or should be. Give him one sentence quoting his denials; the rest of the paragraph stands as the rebuttal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not our place to include a rebuttal. That seems synthetic to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's our place to include a rebuttal if the rebuttal is mentioned in reliable sources. Of course it isn't synthesis... Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are obligated to include Trump's comments by Wikipedia BLP guidelines. The President has denied these allegations, and his denial must be included (WP:WELLKNOWN). Carl and Keiiri, will you please either restore the quote or propose one to your liking? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Start an RfC about it, that might generate new suggestions. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need an RfC, and we don't need "new suggestions". We just need to include a sentence with his denial, as required by BLP guidelines and as agreed to by most of the people in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
I see that the section has been restored. However, as written it is not well organized and doesn't even make clear why we have such a section. I propose to replace the section with this rewritten version. Is this OK with the other discussants here? --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2017 (UT)
 * Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, have strong ties to Russia. American intelligence sources have stated with "high confidence" that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump, and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election. Trump has repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin. For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia, and no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government. Trump himself has said, "I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia.” Trump hosted the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, in partnership with Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. On multiple occasions since 1987 Trump and his children have explored potential business opportunities in Russia, such as a Trump Tower Moscow. Between 1996 and 2008 his company submitted at least eight trademark applications for potential real estate development deals in Russia. However, as of 2017 he has no known investments or businesses in Russia. Some of his businesses outside Russia have received significant financing from individual Russian sources; in 2008 his son Donald Trump Jr. said "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" and "we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia".

Good job, MelanieN. What we have now sounds like a meandering public defender who doesn't know his case. Please give full authorship to your sources (which include Nakashima and Mazzetti now, both excellent) and I will support. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is solid and balanced prose. Approved. — JFG talk 20:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would one of you please restore these two links just above the prose?

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually left them out on purpose - because they are wikilinked in the text, which would be the more normal way to include them. User:JFG, I strongly object to your changing the subject title from "ties to Russia" to "alleged ties to Russia". The section as rewritten (and as you approved) makes it very clear what ties he has and what ties he does not have. There is nothing "alleged" about any of it. I request you to remove the word "alleged". --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JFG. MelanieN, we do not force the reader to investigate every wikilink in an article to find more information. The word "alleged" was removed by SPECIFICO, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that we are generally advised not to put links in a "see also" section if they are already linked in the text: per WP:ALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." But I don't know if that also refers to "see also" links within a section. And it certainly doesn't hurt anything to do both. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right about see also and I agree both won't hurt. WP:HAT seems to be agnostic on this point. Accessibility is common sense and I daresay the links improve navigation for everybody. Per Template:Main article they could be combined into one line if need be. Anyway you did a great job on the rewrite. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the "alleged" bit and other weaselly details or selective omissions from RS-cited text are still appearing on many of the American Politics articles. As more information is reported, these denials in WP text are WP:UNDUE and are in some cases outright WP:FRINGE. I guess we just need to keep this all in mind as we edit these articles.  The information in RS reports is increasing and the article, even where it was appropriately circumspect in past revisions, should now reflect our best assessment of the mainstream view as it stands today.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump is not a "populist" "nationalist" or "protectionist"
All of his policies are neoliberal supply side economics. It's just the same bullshit Republican economics with Trump "rebranding"! Deregulation, tax cuts, massive military and prison industrial complex spending, social conservatism, etc. This article is clearly biased in favor of Trump. AHC300 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Russian influence in election paragraph in opening
The current wording concerning the 2016 Presidential election is as follows:

Based on consensus gained here, I would like to add a mention of Russian Interference.

The proposed opening paragraph would read:

The questions for the RFC are:

1. Should a short mention of Russian interference in the election be added to the paragraph?

2. Should the suggested wording above be added? Casprings (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Russian influence

 * Support As RFC author. This has received ongoing and consistent coverage from WP:RS. It is historically important for the election and is one of the essential facts of historical importantance about the election.Casprings (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The text implies that Russian activity influenced the outcome of the election. Not even U.S. intelligence has made that conclusion and there are actually proven reasons why the Democrats lost, including nominating their least popular candidate ever.  Furthermore the addition is not informative unless it explains how they did this, which was by exposing that the DNC had interfered with the Democratic primary elections.  Another thing that helped Trump was the army of Clinton supporters who attacked pushed her too strongly online and attacked anyone who disagreed with them.  TFD (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Guilt by association is the worst kind of defamation. Either there is concrete proof or there is not  So far we are in the "not" area.  There is no proof that the election was tarnished in any way including Russians, illegal immigrant voting or hacked voting machines.  Adding speculation opens the door to all other speculations with specious facts.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The added sentence doesn't imply guilt. It only states the fact of what US intelligence concluded which is historically significant, given those are the conclusions of the intelligence agencies where the election occurred. Casprings (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This article is a biography of Donald J. Trump, not the 2016 election article, not an article on cyberwarfare, not an article on propaganda or US-Russia relations. Allegations of Russian influence on the election have a tiny place in Trump's overall life story, fashionable hyperventilation notwithstanding. See WP:LEAD for guidance. — JFG talk 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whenever it is shown that "X" interfered in an election and developed a clear preference for candidate "Y", I think we would need more information and more clarity to include this in the lead of the winning candidate's BLP. Was the interference illegal?  Did it affect the outcome?  Was "Y" in cahoots with "X"?  Maybe when the investigations are done we will have answers.  It appears that the government of Ukraine developed a clear preference for Trump's opponent, and interfered against Trump during the election, FWIW.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I absolutely believe Russian interference (released of hacked information), and interference by Comey (bullshit witch hunt), handed Trump the election; however, the lede of this BLP is no place for this sort of thing. There's simply no way to properly explain the context within the confines of a sentence. Additionally, I strongly oppose the very existence of this RfC while another one on exactly the same sentence is ongoing. Furthermore, an RfC is only appropriate when all other avenues of discussion have been exhausted, and this is the first time anyone has even suggested we include something like this in the lede. I suggest this RfC be immediately closed and archived, and Casprings be beaten senseless with Wikipedia's preferred flavor of Salmoniformes. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the community wants to close the RFC, so be it. I guess my question would be, when does it reach a point where it belongs in the opening? This issue has dominated his presidency and it is possiable that it could end his presidency if there is evidence of the Truml Campaign working or knowing about Russian interference. What is a decent standard for when to bring this back up and when? Clearly this seems very relavent to him personally to me. I just wanted to get some thoughts on when this belongs, if events continue to evolve.Casprings (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You write: This issue has dominated his presidency and it is possiable that it could end his presidency – This is your opinion; it has no place in an encyclopedia until something along these lines eventually happens. The opposite opinion would have no place either. I guess you have noticed that the community is globally opposed to your proposal, irrespective of individual editors' opinions of Mr. Trump. Accordingly, I would advise you to withdraw your RfC, as you are entitled to do per WP:RFCEND. Or keep it going, your choice. — JFG talk 20:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion and WP:Crystalball to put anything in the article suggesting that now. However, asking for guidance on when this becomes an issue that belongs in the article is not an issue.. It is also very supportable to say that the issue in general and connections to Russia have dominated his presidency. Depending on how the future unfolds, at some point mentions of Russia and Russian involvement belong in the opening. Just asking for some thoughts on when that would be.Casprings (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * oppose Such a sentence may be viable in the body, but not in the lede. Such a statement requires a lot of context and balancing info, and doing such would be way too much for the lede. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose putting anything about this issue in the lede. The things currently detailed in the lede (oldest, richest, fifth) are a permanent part of his history and his legacy. But nobody knows at this point whether the Russia allegations will come to nothing, or will be the defining issue of his presidency. If they turn out to dominate his presidency, we can add something to the lede then, but we are nowhere near that point now. (However, I oppose the suggestion to beat Casprings senseless with a trout. Use every Wikipedian after his/her deserts, and who shall 'scape trouting?) --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. You asked when that point would come? IMO the attempt by Russia (successful or not, we don't know) to intervene in the election will not, by itself, have a major impact on his presidency. (You may think that it should - but that is not the way things are going.) But the more we find out about contacts between his campaign team and the Russians, the larger the issue looms. And if it turns out (as it might) that Trump himself worked with the Russians to bring about that result, or that Trump as president starts favoring Russia in ways that go beyond reason and become scandalous - those are things that could end his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Specific nature of the consensus
modified the new consensus list entry as follows:. With that change, anyone could add Russian influence content elsewhere in the lead, and we would be into another discussion or RfC about that. My reading of the !voting is that the opposition is to inclusion anywhere in the lead, not just at that particular point (and not just with that specific wording either). I don't think Casprings's edit is appropriate or useful. Comments? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is the consensus, so be it. I just thought the sentence was overstating it. Most comments were talking about the inability to provide enough "context", etc. Moreover, the RFC directly related to the election. I didn't think it was a further statement the that or a theoretical addition of a statement with more context. Casprings (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it back. The RfC closure clearly states that the subject should not be mentioned in the lede, and I believe that is an accurate reading of the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I would like to see more comments affirming that. Like, four more with no dissent. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? Aren't you the one who snow-closed it? Quite properly IMO, since at that point there were six people opposed to including it in the lede, vs. only one for including it. Second question: how do you propose to get four more comments with the discussion closed? Or to put it another way: if you thought it needed more comments, why did you close it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you put it that way. If lil ole me has the authority to unilaterally make that determination, I hereby rule that the consensus is to omit any mention of Russian influence anywhere in the lead. ✅ (I meant four more in this subsection.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the determination you made already, isn't it? "As I read it, Casprings has accepted that the content will not be added to the lead" - what was unclear about that? --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My main reason for closing was to end the change in direction; it was mostly a procedural close. When Casprings changed the consensus entry, I saw at least some merit in their rationale, which was that the RfC's question was very specific and so any consensus should apply only to that specific question. The RfC did not ask "should something about Russian influence be included somewhere in the lead?", and Casprings asserted that an RfC cannot answer a question that was not asked. I therefore sought other input to clarify the consensus. All this does seem extremely legalistic, but it's not uncommon for consensuses to be challenged on the basis of just such nits, and I hoped to avoid that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My two cents: the WP:SNOW consensus was very clear, as editors both sympathetic to and skeptical of the Russian intervention have opposed inclusion in the lead of Trump's bio. Casprings' unilateral change was disruptive and deserves a second WP:TROUT (although I agree that the beating should not be senseless ). — JFG talk 07:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Disagree as to disruptive, several of us have made unilateral changes to that list per WP:BOLD. It's not disruptive if one understands that the change is subject to revert and discussion, and refrains from edit warring. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes without consensus; time to move on?
This edit has consensus:

This edit does not

This edit has undergone numerous rounds of consensus including an RfC. Let's leave the edit alone for now and move on to other issues. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also someone added in "one of the few. . ." instead of "the fifth elected without a plurality of the national popular vote." The word 'few' implies three; Trump was the fifth. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I made the edit you refer to, I am actually fine with your reverting it and restoring the original wording. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On what planet does "few" imply just 3? It simply means "a small number", which in the context we are discussing is absolutely fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

determiner, adjective, & pronoun determiner: few; adjective: few; comparative adjective: fewer; superlative adjective: fewest "may I ask a few questions?" synonyms:	a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three; More "he had few friends" synonyms:	scarce, scant, meager, insufficient, in short supply; More antonyms:	plentiful noun plural noun: the few synonyms: a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three; not many, hardly any "there weren't many biscuits, but we saved you a few"
 * few
 * fyo͞o/Submit
 * 1.a small number of.
 * 2.used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is.
 * 1.the minority of people; the elect."a world that increasingly belongs to the few"

In other words, not 5. And Hi, to whoever is explaining this to you. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, the achievement of those those three or four pilots who won the Battle of Britain is all the more extraordinary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We're not talking about Winston Churchill's rhetorical use of the word 'few.' SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this, "few" is better than "several" because the former implies rarity, and four of five occurrences out of 45 certainly qualifies as rare. "Several" does not imply rarity. There are no scholarly sources I can find that insist "few" means three. None. "Few" is a relative number, and depends entirely on context. 4 or 5 out of 45 is few. If it were 6 or 7, perhaps "several" would be better, but the low number demands "few". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Merriam-Webster entry says nothing about a specific number. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We can start an RfC if you like. But there is no consensus for 'few.' This is an encyclopedia. If reliable sources say he's the fifth, then that is what we use. Not Scjessey's opnion. The source I used said, two or three. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your unidentified source says "two or three" along with a lot of other things that you have chosen to ignore. In other words, in its opinion, one of the possible meanings of "few" is "two or three". Not the only meaning. Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster, one of the major dictionaries, omits even that brief reference to a specific number. I conclude that your (and Anything's) claim to a specific definition is without merit. Since the fourth-or-fifth question has been shown to be largely a matter of interpretation, I support "few". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The OED goes into great detail on the definitions of few without ever mentioning a number. Basically, it means not many. Objective3000 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My goodness this is rather silly. Donald Trump is the 5th -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- person to be elected with less than a plurality of the popular vote, that should be the end of the matter. Editor's personal quibbles with the sources must defer. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with on this. This is down to editor's quibbles. If there is a question of 4 or 5, then show sources so the editors here can judge which sources to go with. Masking the issue by giving up and selecting the vague, 'few' does not seem a solution for an encyclopedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of a vague term. The point we wish to make is that the number is relatively small. Whether it's 4, 5, or 7 is less important, especially in the lead (we are already elaborating somewhat below the lead, and that could be further clarified if desired). As you say, we're an encyclopedia. We're not Trivial Pursuit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think 's suggested wording "one of a few" is a good solution to avoid further disputes on this paragraph. People who want details are just a click away from a lengthy article discussing all the historical cases and near-misses. "A few" actually may pique readers' curiosity to go read more and get educated, which is after all the purpose of the encyclopedia… — JFG talk 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that there are inherent problems with using vague terms, especially in a BLP. There have also been many surveys and RfC's regarding this one paragraph and apparently none of them were over the word 'few.' If you would like to start a new RfC for it, then by all means do. It seems another time-sink when more effort could be put into improving other sections of the article that need more attention. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "few" would be better than a specific number, given uncertainty about 1960 and pre-1824, plus certainty that no one won a plurality in 1876. I would think "several" is more accurate but "few" works. By the way, there was no consensus to change 4 to 5. It was 4 when the RFC started.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And be prepared for editors who believe: couple = 2; few = 3; several = 4 or more. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

, then show us the sources that say 4, and sentence that does not require additional explanation such as "he was the fifth but really the fourth if you don't count so and so." SW3 5DL (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, please show sources for 'few.' SW3 5DL (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to paraphrase. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are many statements in the lead that are not verbatim in the sources. What source says "became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Few" makes it sound likes he's one of the ONLY ones and seems POV pushing, as if there was some fault or illegitimacy to his election when there was not. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then start an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * I plan on inserting "one of about five presidents elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote". So, we keep saying five but acknowledge uncertainty.  We don't know about pre-1824 or 1960.  We do know that no one won a plurality in 1876, so that cannot be one of the five.  If people oppose this proposal, then I plan on reverting to the number 4 that existed when the no-consensus RFC began.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "one of about five. . ." it's going to invite reverts. But saying, "Trump is the fourth president. . ." would be fine but I'd like to see the RS. The problem with being concerned with 1824 or 1960, if these election vote counts are not knowable, and I don't see why 1960 would not be sourced, then the sources would still have some measure of what happened. But rather than making what could seem a unilateral move, show RS for changing to 4, rather than just saying it was there in the previous RfC. Somewhere along the line, somebody came up with the rationale for "fifth president. . ." Find out how that came about. I believe you that it was 4 before, but somehow it became 5. How did that happen? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a typo given all the iterations that edit has gone through. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources unanimously say that a president won less than the plurality of the popular vote in 1824, 1888, 2000, and 2016. That is why the number "4" was in the lead when the RFC started.  It was not a typo.  Reliable sources also say there is some chance that a president may have won with less than a plurality of the popular vote before 1824 and/or in 1960.  And reliable sources unanimously say that no one got a plurality of the popular vote in 1876.  Those are the facts.  If you doubt one of more of those facts, then please tell me which ones, and I'd be glad to again provide reliable sources.  It is not our job to pretend that there is only one single exact truth about this stuff.  The lead of our article about the Sun says, "Its diameter is about 109 times that of Earth."  Note the word "about".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like I had 4th in the RfC, but JFG's version had 5th, so I changed it. I might have gotten the 4th from you. . SW3 5DL (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It said "fourth" when the RFC began on 8 January. It said "fifth" on 11 February, but  it said "fourth" the day before.  There was never any consensus for the edit to change it to fifth on 10 February.  And the editor who made that edit later changed his mind and attempted to remove "fifth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * you need to show the diffs of that. I'm not going to go hunting for them. I found the ones I was involved in, I don't see why you can't find yours.
 * Also, I just did a Google search and I'm finding the sources are saying it's Hillary who is the 5th candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, as well as sources that say Trump is the 4th to win without the popular vote, and also sources that say he is the 5th to win the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I need to show diffs? My last comment above (00:56, 21 February 2017) is full of diffs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources say 5th, from what I have seen and from what other Wikipedia articles say. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. TheValeyard (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The sources are unanimous that no candidate in 1876 won less than the plurality, because there was no plurality in 1876.  Samuel Tilden in 1876 remains the only loser to win a majority of the popular vote (rather than a plurality).   The sources are also unanimous that we do not know how many presidents before 1824 won with less than a plurality of the popular vote, and that there is controversy about who won the most votes in 1960.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pew Research Center seems to have it sorted: SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pew says, "For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote.". You can lose the popular vote by getting less than the plurality (as in 1826, 1888, 2000, 2016) or instead by getting less than the majority (1876). 4+1=5.  Since  you have objected to using the word "about", I plan on reverting to "four" which was what the article said at the start of the RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But now we're back to your obsession with the popular vote majority and that's back in the weeds. It seems that was discussed at length in every instance including the RfC that went nowhere and as far as I can see, nobody wanted it. And for good reason. It's clear as mud and you repeatedly failed to come up with a coherent edit that editors could agree on. You are becoming disruptive with this.SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am obsessed and you are not. Sure.  Whatever you say.  If you would like to remove the popular vote from the lead, go ahead.  Until you remove it, it remains in the lead and should be accurate.  There's nothing disruptive about reverting the number to what it was when the no-consensus RFC started.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but 1876 counts despite your sole voice protesting against it, making Trump's 2016 election the 5th. Also, what may or may not have happened before 1824 is irrelevant; if popular votes were not officially recorded before then, then we simply don't pay attention to that. The NFL did not start officially tallying sacks until 1982. Quarterbacks were certainly tackled behind the line of scrimmage before 1982, but they are an unofficial, statistical irrelevance. TheValeyard (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 1876 counts as a time when the person who lost the election won the popular vote, but does not count as a time when the person who lost the election won a plurality of the popular vote. You can keep arguing all you want, but it won't change history.  Nor will arguing change the fact that many reliable sources say JFK may have lost the popular vote.  But by all means, put all your misinformation into the lead of this high-profile BLP.  Cheers!Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

makes an excellent point about the counts before 1824. If there are no records, then what happened is unknowable and irrelevant. JFK's election is in question because of voter fraud. We can't know about that either. We have to go with what we know and can be sourced. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Jesus Christ, people. This bickering over whether or not it is the fourth of fifth time is exactly why I came up with "one of the few" in the first place! It looks like a majority of editors agree with this compromise, yet it seems certain editors insist on slow-motion edit warring the contentious version back into the article, and then continuing their stupid argument about it. Put "one of the few" back in for stability, let the blue links do their work in the lede, and expand the text in the body so that the matter is fully explained. But this madness needs to stop! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That comment isn't helping sort things here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and your reference to slow-edit warring, it seems to be you doing that with your unilateral decision to replace with 'few' . My only edits have been to restore edits that have consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "unilateral" decision. Replacing the text with "one of the few" had support from other editors. Your edits merely disruptively restored an earlier consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Do you have diffs of your consensus before you made your change? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question
Is it correct that 1876 counts as a time when the person who lost the election won the popular vote, but does not count as a time when the person who lost the election won a plurality of the popular vote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but first I have some RL to attend to. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. Anythingyouwant, no need for the heightened tone earlier, we can all discuss this rationally. I'm just a simple guy who looks at the simple numbers that other editors have pointed to, and also the simple sources. The Daily Kos says it is 5 (Donald Trump: Sub-Plurality President), the International Business Times says Trump is the 5th (Vote Update: Why Hillary Clinton Didn't Win A Majority Of The Electorate), and while CNN does not out-and-out say "5th" in their article (It's official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote), they do tally your disputed 1876 election as one of these tainted plurality votes, so one can safely surmise they see Trump as #5. I'm looking at the sources and telling you what they say; at the end of that day, what else can we do? TheValeyard (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

, I agree. I just looked at the totals:
 * 50.92% for Tilden
 * 47.92% for Hayes


 * 48.2%Clinton
 * 46.1% Trump

It looks like less than a plurality for Hayes. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You think Tilden won a plurality?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arby break II
This is the biography page of Donald Trump, elected US President in 2016. Whatever happened in 1876 has no bearing on his bio. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This whole section has strayed away from a productive discussion to improve the article, into a debate on historical stats. We might as well remove the whole sentence, so nobody will argue fourth, fifth, a few or irrelevancy. More seriously, we can either keep the current version with "fifth" and the link, or switch to Scjessey's proposal with "a few"; in both cases, readers interested to learn more are one click away from a full article on electoral quirks of history. If editors can't agree on a consensus version, the current text stays in until somebody offers a new version and gets it approved by RfC. — JFG talk 06:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What I seek is stability. The text I proposed was designed to get around the fourth/fifth argument, which is better explored at length elsewhere, rather than in the lede. We should need an RfC (supposed to be a last resort thing) just because a couple of editors don't know what "few" means. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JFG, you say we should keep saying in the lead that Trump's the "fifth" in history to defeat someone who got a plurality of the popular vote, but you say it's irrelevant whether the other four actually happened, and irrelevant whether reliable sources actually say they happened. Very amusing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Obviously I'm not saying that historical precedents are irrelevant in general. I just believe that such historical trivia are indeed irrelevant to Donald Trump's biography; they are relevant to the 2016 election page and to the Electoral College page. I also believe that if we are going to say something, we must not dwell into details, as there's an article for this. Which explains why I'm fine with either "fifth" (as seems to be the correct count per most sources) or "a few" (to appease nitpickers about various interpretations of historical stats). — JFG talk 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but suppose it's not correct according to most sources. Then you would apparently feel differently about this.  And it's extremely clear to me that no reliable source on earth says that there have been five instances where someone lost the presidency while getting a plurality of the popular vote.  Not. One. Source.  What the sources say is that there have been four instances like that, and five instances where someone lost the presidency while getting the largest share of the popular vote.  The sources are extremely clear about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Then leaving the edit as is, should be fine. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Except it's not fine, because of the issue that some editors think "fourth" is more accurate than "fifth". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is disruptive. JFG was just making a copy edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing "a" back to "the" is disruptive? I think we should have an ArbCom case about that.  Seriously, there was no grammatical issue.  And I honestly think that the word "the" makes more clear that Clinton won a plurality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys need to stop reverting each other over every damn thing. It's particularly laughable when editors perform reversions in the name of stability. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not just in the name of stability, though undoubtedly one of the versions was more stable than the other. It was also because there was no grammatical error as had been alleged.  And the third reason was that it makes clearer that Clinton won a plurality. That's three valid reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Geez Louise. How many times do we have to go through this? OK, for starters, we are not going to say "few" or "several" or any such hedge, because Reliable Sources don't. They mostly say "fifth"; a few say "fourth" because they aren't counting 1824. (They omit 1824 because they are talking about people who won the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and in 1824 the winning candidate lost both the electoral college and the popular vote. But that doesn't matter to us because we are not saying "won the electoral college"; we are saying "was elected" or "became president") According to an article cited by Anythingyouwant in the section below, the four previous "canonical instances", i.e., universally accepted examples, are 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Those are the examples referred to by all the Reliable Sources. That's why Trump is the fifth. Anythingyouwant wants us to exclude 1876 because of the distinction between "plurality" and "majority"; personally think that is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin distinction. I haven't seen any reliable sources do that; excluding 1876 would just be a function of our using the word "plurality". I suppose we could say "less than a plurality or majority" and solve that quibble, but it would look really silly. 1960 is not cited by any of the sources writing about Trump, so we don't need to worry about it in this biography article. We could get around the pre-1824 issue by saying "since records began to be kept in 1824" but the body of the text already says that; it seems unnecessarily detailed for the lede. Bottom line, he is the fifth, just like it says in the long-established sentence and in the reliable sources, and this constant haggling about the wording is getting us nowhere.

Just to make it clear: I strongly oppose "few" or "several", or "about five" or "at least the fifth", because Reliable Sources don't hedge like that. I strongly oppose "fourth" because it is misleading and simply wrong. {If it was there before the RfC that was an accident of timing; it had gone back and forth between fourth and fifth for a long time; there was never a consensus for "fourth".) If the "plurality" argument causes problems with 1876, we could rewrite the sentence to get around "plurality". But seriously, there is only one person, Anythingyouwant, who keeps haggling about this sentence and threatening to do it his way regardless of what we say. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's important that Clinton won a popular plurality instead of a popular majority, and lots of reliable sources have said the same. This would be irrelevant but for the random and silly decision not to mention percentages in the lead.  Because we're talking in the lead about pluralities rather than all popular vote victories, the sources that count the latter are inapplicable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So let's stop talking about pluralities for heavens sake, and use some other word. That's the only problem with 1876. If we get rid of the word "plurality", which many people opposed anyhow, we can count the four "canonical" previous instances as we should - and as the vast majority of Reliable Sources have done. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember that it is only alleged that she won a popular plurality, and that some think that their was voter fraud particularly in California. If we include percentages in the lead we might as well include that too. We might as well include the margins at the College, as it is claimed that he won that in a landslide too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Melanie, impressive job sorting that. Also agree with Emir on the voter fraud thing. On the percentages, I don't think that's a good long term solution unless the other presidents have it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We agreed that the percentages go in the body of the text, not in the lede. The actual electoral vote numbers are in the text also. As for the popular vote margin, it is not "only alleged" that she won a popular plurality; that is the documented result from all actual tallies and all official sources. If there are inaccuracies in that count, they cannot possibly be large enough to affect the total. What is "only alleged" - without any evidence or any details - is that there was voter fraud widespread enough to have reversed the popular vote. It is against all credibility that such a thing could have been pulled off, without detection, on such a huge scale. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not some hat trick to rig the election. California gives driver's licenses to the undocumented aliens and at the DMV there is a voter registration. They get the license and they register to vote at the same time. California allows them to register. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? There is zero evidence of significant voter fraud. There may be some voter registration fraud, but not actual voter fraud. Clinton's popular vote lead was legitimate. Moreover, Trump did not win in an "Electoral College landslide" either. His margin of victory is pretty low down on the list, in fact. All this bullshit comes from Trump himself, because his skin is so thin he can't cope with the fact he barely won the election (it hinged on a few thousand votes in a few key states). And the fact that there are only 4 other instances (out of 44) in which this happened, you could actually argue his win was somewhat anomalous and unusual. So let's dispense with the cheerleading for Trump, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, it is illegal in California for non-citizens to register to vote. Objective3000 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a member of the L.A. City Council who is an undocumented immigrant. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Source? If you can't find one, I suggest you delete the above edit. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Might be referring to 2 appointed to public office in Huntington Park CA. To parks and recreation commission as well as health and education commission? CNN I'm not really sure PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be -- although it's not LA, they aren't elected, and aren't paid. They're just volunteer advisors. Objective3000 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its a part of LA county, but yeah a bit of a nothing there. Lots of media hype at the time that passed quickly. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, LA County is enormous with a larger population than 42 states. LA is only 11% of LA County in area. Objective3000 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not true
Someone keeps changing "a plurality" back to "the plurality" because they want to see 5th changed to 4th. The sentence is not true as it stands now... Just change it to "losing the popular vote" and be rid of the plurality thing. There is no reason to pack the fact that Clinton won less than a majority into that little part... Bod (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not pack it in?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because most won't get that nugget of information from the sentence and in order to do it, you have to have 4th, which I know you want. 01:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gold nugget Bod (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You really think I want the lead to include that Clinton got a plurality because I like the number 4 better than the number 5? If that's what you think, it's entirely backwards and absurd.  Some readers will glean from the sentence in question that Clinton got a plurality rather than a majority.  Some won't.  I see absolutely no harm in including the information (which is why the word "the" seems totally harmless to me).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything, I realize you are eager to make it clear that Clinton did not get a popular majority. (I don't know why this is so important to you; it's actually fairly common that no-one gets a majority when there are significant third-party candidates.) That's why you are so insistent on using the word "plurality". You think this word gets the point across, even though most people don't understand the distinction between "plurality" and "majority" unless they look it up. This might be "harmless", as you say, except for your insistence that this word means we must omit one of the generally accepted previous instances where someone became president even though someone else got a higher share of the popular vote. You are never going to get consensus for this, so the only alternatives are to rewrite the sentence so as to drop "plurality", or accept "plurality" but also accept "fifth" which you are unwilling to do. I really hate to rewrite the long-term sentence but I also want to put an end to this interminable quibbling over the sentence. We have had multiple proposals during this thread that would do that, but you objected to all of them. If you can't find any wording you will accept that says he is the fifth, we are eventually going to have to just close this discussion, leaving your objections unsatisfied. Consensus rules here; one person cannot overcome consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well said. Finally someone has said it. If he persists, I would support topic banning him. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC) was
 * I would agree to drop "plurality" which opens a can of worms, and rephrase this with "a larger share of", or rather "a smaller share of" because we are talking about Trump's performance here. Some variant of this phrasing actually the going version at some point which seems eons ago… — JFG talk 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is almost my last comment on the subject. Some editors here do not care in the least how many reliable sources say that Clinton failed to get a majority of the popular vote.  For whatever reason, there is insistence that any hint of that fact be kept out of the lead.  Contrary to what User:MelanieN has said, I have agreed to at least half a dozen proposed wordings, in both the RFC and afterward.  Instead, I keep bumping into some weird fixation with the number five.  If I say that Tuesday is one of the seven days of the week, it is also true that Tuesday is one of five weekdays.  Five and seven are both correct.  I am removing this article from my watchlist.  Have fun!Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you @MelanieN. Imo, you've hit the nail by writing it's actually fairly common that no-one gets a majority when there are significant third-party candidates. --Neun-x (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very uncommon for a losing candidate to get a plurality, and even rarer for a losing candidate to get a majority. The reason why reliable sources so very often mentioned that Clinton got less than a majority is because getting a majority would have more severely undermined the perceived legitimacy of Trump's presidency.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, your "last comment on the subject" didn't last long. 0;-D Actually Reliable Sources don't usually bother with the plurality/majority issue, because most people don't even know the difference. For a losing candidate to get a majority has only happened once, and it didn't happen here, so there's no need to belabor the point. (Even winning candidates frequently don't get a popular vote majority; no big deal.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bosh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus proposal
Proposed rephrasing following the extensive discussion:

Polling for approval or rejection… — JFG talk 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What about this? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Excellent compromise wording that surely satisfies the concerns of all parties. Great work, JFG! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "smaller share" too vague and will just result in more 'proposals.' Come up with something else, like the fifth to lose the popular vote, if you want to get rid of plurality. I have no objection to getting rid of that.  SW3 5DL (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Work on it This is progress, but could be improved. Comparing it to the previous "consensus" version, this makes two changes: it omits "At age 70" (I think we all agreed on that) and improves the final phrase. I agree that "smaller share" is unclear. "Elected" is also not strictly true since a couple of the previous cases were chosen by Congress. How about something like this?  We could say   but I never really liked talking about "winning" or "losing" the popular vote, as if it were an actual contest which it isn't. However, many Reliable Sources use this terminology so I could accept it.--MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with that. Others? --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. think it says it all and it has the link to the Wiki articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't do it just on our say-so. We will need a much wider consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can support that. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it be on our say-so. I was responding to the fact that you had earlier made your own suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so great, sorry. The popular vote is a statistic about the election, it's not a contest that can be won or lost. The target article should even be re-titled. It's true that many sources write about "losing the popular vote" for expediency, but this is on its face incorrect, and I believe the encyclopedia should be more precise with language (especially in potentially contentious topics). It had been proposed that we should mention Trump "winning" the majority of counties, and that was rejected as well because it's just a statistic, not something to win or lose. This election is indeed exceptional as one of only 5 examples, so we can definitely say something, but we are not in the business of handing out consolation prizes to Hillary Clinton. Say "Trump received a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", or "Trump received fewer votes than Clinton nationwide" or "the national tally of ballots favored his opponent", there are many ways to skin this cat… — JFG talk 11:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggestion B2 Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected after losing the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggestion C
 * Any support for that one? — JFG talk 11:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this one more, in part because "popular vote" is not a well-known concept outside the US & UK. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to support every proposal now, because I'm fed up with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That works for me. support --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That works for me. support --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It brings back the problem of neglecting the Electoral College, and again, the vague 'fewer.' Nowhere is there a suggestion he won any votes, which he did. Instead this edit is saying he's the president despite not winning enough votes. And going by JFG's protest above, the popular vote is a statistic. Should we then say by what percentage Trump lost the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All previous proposals have also left out the electoral college; that is explained in the body of the text. Likewise the percentages. We are talking here about the lede paragraph, which is not supposed to go into detail. If we can't agree on something better, we could be stuck with the unfortunate word "plurality" which is now in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the use of plurality made it plain how the national vote went. This is what we have now:

What's wrong with it and why is it that nobody so far has come up with a better edit? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. We all have ideas how to improve it, but we can't agree, and if we can't, we should stop wasting our time and just let it stand. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not right. The existing text is unpopular, otherwise we would not keep trying to revise it. SW3 has complained loudly whenever a proposal seems to elevate the status of the popular vote, but improving the article should never be held hostage to one editor's intransigence. The fact is that the popular vote is important. For one thing, it echoed the opinion polls in the run up to the election, which is why Trump's victory was such a surprise. The difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College highlights the flaws in the EC system, the flaws in Clinton's campaign strategy, the flaws in opinion poll methodology and a host of other factors. Also, apart from a extremely select group of people intimately familiar with US politics, the term "plurality" is not well understood. JFG has presented two perfectly acceptable solutions to these issues, and only SW3 seems to object to them. We should pick one of these solutions and put it in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually SW3 proposed a perfectly acceptable solution above - (B) Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to lose the popular vote. - and JFG was the one who objected to it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I can't support any version that mentions "losing" or "winning" the popular vote, as explained above. you also wrote I never really liked talking about "winning" or "losing" the popular vote, as if it were an actual contest which it isn't, so we seem to agree that this formulation would be unlikely to get consensus. Am I right? — JFG talk 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point, we are arguing in circles. Every possible comment and variation has been discussed to death among a small group of regulars with enough patience to keep going and try to find a solution which satisfies everybody. Such a solution does not exist. I suggest putting proposal C up for an RfC. I know that the prior RfC failed to get consensus, but this text is much simpler and may well work. Also we should avoid offering several options in RfCs, that just kills the chances for consensus right from day 1. If that step fails, then we're back to the current "by default" version which is not elegant but also not false, and hopefully we can live with that for 6 months before re-hashing the debate yet again. Thoughts? — JFG talk 21:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of focusing on what you want, why don't you think about what works for the reader?I'd like to add that myself and others have come up with many iterations of this edit and you've rejected every one. Like many others, I've worked very hard to come up with something will work for the article and the reader. You only accept what you want. This is disruption. Are we to go through this with every edit you want? I don't think that's fair to the editors or to this article. You disrupted the last RfC. Continuing this quest to get what you want is disruptive. Maybe you should take a break, like Anythingyouwant has done. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (U
 * I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of your criticism here. Surely you're trying to help reach consensus, and so am I, and so are our fellow discussants – good faith all around. Indeed what works for the reader must be our overarching priority, and I often quote WP:Readers first myself, so we agree on that too. In this thread I have read what everybody was saying then I offered a potential way forward in terms of phrasing, or even several ones, and I asked for comments. I feel that suggestions A, B and C can all work well for the readers. You oppose my proposal C, and I oppose your proposal B, but we are just chatting among 5-6 editors here anyway, so I say let's put it to RfC. Then you say I'm only pushing for what I want?? Now I'm puzzled.
 * Let's move back a few weeks. Last time that we were close to a consensus version, you said "hey, let's put it to RfC" and, without even asking the other participants whether an RfC was a good idea and which of the various versions under active discussion should be submitted to RfC. Indeed you launched the RfC with two variants that you had suggested, ignoring the more recent ones that had been collectively refined towards consensus… at a point where everybody in the discussion was feeling we were very close to consensus. Seeing that, I said that the RfC was probably counter-productive and ; , but you felt differently. Then I added a third choice in the RfC which reflected the closest we were getting to a consensus version in the discussion thread, and we let the process run its course.
 * But seeing the !votes come in, you started, or other bad faith aspersions. Many editors happened to prefer the C variant and you felt that the game was rigged, of which I saw absolutely no evidence. I remember being genuinely puzzled at your accusations. Finally after 30 days and many participants the RfC was closed without consensus and we retained the prior version which happened to be not too bad after all. So today, as the discussion has been re-ignited, and we have limited local consensus with some objections, I suggest to put the proposed text to an RfC and you call this disruptive? I really really don't get it. Maybe I should take a break, as you suggest.  Respectfully, — JFG talk 23:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To address the "winning/loosing" dislike above, e.g. just say he won the electoral without gaining the popular vote.( Even though "winning/loosing" is what we know it as here in the US. )--TMCk (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice try, thanks, but "gaining the popular vote" isn't at all clear, and I don't think any Reliable Sources used that word. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to leave off the electoral college. I agree, in the US it is common the winning/losing just like the rest of the world. And notice the edit starts off with "Trump won. . ." so adding in "losing the popular vote" fits in. I forget what that's called in English, when words complement like that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the phrase starts with "Trump won the election" because — well, how shall I put it? — he won the election! Saying that he lost the popular vote is a false equivalence; it makes it sound like there are two criteria to become US head of state, and that somehow Trump is kind of only halfway legitimate because he prevailed with only one of the two criteria. This is absurd on its face. In my country, some votes require a double majority: 50% of the ballots and 50% of the cantons (our little states); in such a system you can actually say "Project X was rejected by the people although it was approved by the cantons", or vice versa. Under the US presidential system, this duality simply does not exist. It may be discussed in article about a particular election where it happened, or about the voting system itself, but it has no place in the lead section of a candidate's biography. Even our George W. Bush article does not use the "win/lose" terms about the popular vote; it only says: 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. — JFG talk 01:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Arby break III
If we do go for a new RfC, make it ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PHRASE. Don't mention "oldest and wealthiest" or "first without prior military or government service" in the proposal, because we already have a hard-fought consensus on those phrases. Personally I think we might reach a consensus among us if we would just spell out exactly what it is we object to in the proposals we have opposed; that has been hard to parse sometimes. For example, SW3 objected to "C" because it leaves out the electoral college and uses the word "fewer". And yet a few paragraphs earlier, SW3 actually proposed a version ("B") that did not mention the electoral college, so that must not be a deal-breaker after all. JFG objected to the word "losing" which is why he proposed "C". If we could agree among us which version to offer at RfC, and agree not to offer alternative wordings during the course of the discussion, I think we would have a much better chance of getting a real consensus. I STRONGLY urge that none of us start an RfC until we have agreed among ourselves what version to propose. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with your suggestions: discuss just the last phrase and get local agreement on a version first. Also we have to decide if we put two variants to the !vote, or just one vs status quo. In either case, it should remain limited to a binary choice: "this or that"; not "foo, bar, bazaar, zygyzy or maybe your own idea, unless you firmly oppose any change" — that's guaranteed to fail from the get-go. — JFG talk 01:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I oppose another RfC. And absolutely oppose having only one choice, which is of course JFG's choice. Seriously? I suggest JFG stop now and leave this go for several months. He has been pushing this for too long, and taking up all our time. He won't stop until he gets what he wants. What's the difference between version A and C? "smaller versus fewer." No change, no evidence of any compromise. There's nothing wrong with the edit as it is. This can wait. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

, No, we cannot do this again. JFG and Scjessey are tag-teaming this because they want the language "fewer" or "smaller" which both say the same thing and are vague, will cause problems and confuse the reader. It suggests that Trump has done something wrong but is still president, or as Scjessy puts it, it is 'anomalous.' We can't inject his POV. And the determination to keep this going for how long? With these walls of text? Sorry, JFG is the one who is not compromising. Also, notice how he wants only HIS version for an RfC. No, not again. Give it a rest for now. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly urge you to redact your allegation of tag-teaming. For the rest of your aspersions about my motives, I just commented above, I'm simply disappointed that you would assume bad faith from me or from anyone else in those discussions. Thanks. — JFG talk 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed that you keep assuming bad faith on my part. It's not about "what I want". What I want is a stable consensus, as I suppose that's what we all want here. Now there are three variants on the table:
 * (A) the fifth elected with a smaller share of the popular vote
 * (B) the fifth to lose the popular vote
 * (C) the fifth to receive fewer votes than his opponent
 * plus the statu quo option:
 * (S) the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote
 * I don't give a hoot who suggested which variant. I want a successful RfC resulting in a stable phrasing, so we can all get on with our lives. This outcome has been achieved on no less than 15 contentious subjects within this article; surely we can get over this one hurdle too. If this goes to RfC with 4 variants, we are practically guaranteed a no consensus outcome, which means (S) wins the day. Frankly, it's a very awkward turn of phrase; might as well forgo the RfC and close this discussion. Now if we agree that (S) is bad, then we can further agree on one variant and put this to the RfC, or we can pick two and make it an either/or choice. I'm open to both possibilities. — JFG talk 01:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We have consensus
 * We have stable phrasing
 * There is no hurdle we need to get over other than asking you to stop voluntarily
 * It will go to RfC with many iterations because everybody will feel free to come out with the thing that bugs them, not just you.
 * It is not an 'awkward turn of phrase.' Rather it says exactly what happened in a concise, accurate way, and more importantly, it does it with consensus.
 * We don't need another RfC
 * Please stop putting up walls of text

SW3 5DL (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about me. It's about your continuing disruption of this page. You're already interrupting my posts. And as for the comment that you're only doing this "so we can all go on with our lives?" We have been moving on to other things. It's just you and Scjessey who have not. And we have a stable consensus. So far, you, Scjessey, and Anythingyouwant are the only ones who kept roiling this page. He left voluntarily. Take a break. Leave this alone. Donald Trump won. End of. The edit is stable, it's neutral, and it's concise and very clear what the outcome was. We can all move on now. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You might note that you have zero support for your criticisms of JFG. Then remember what zero support means at Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He's been doing this for two months. What's your idea for an edit? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I said some time ago something to the effect that cost exceeds benefit to continue debate on this sentence, and that the status quo is not unacceptable to me. You and others chose to continue debate, which is fine, but my opinion hasn't changed. Basically, I'm abstaining except to say that I'm not opposed to another RfC, which might have a better chance of producing a consensus than what we've been doing here for the past week or two. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember that. I feel the same way. Diminishing returns. You didn't like plurality, but what about popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm abstaining. That means I'm not going to be drawn back into the debate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Use "become president" over "elected"
 * I object to "his opponent" because 1824 had multiple opponents
 * "receive fewer votes" without additional qualifications = confusing with electors who also cast "votes"

\\ Bod (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 'It's a bit wordy. "after receiving fewer popular votes than another candidate." I think win the presidency and lose the popular vote. It's thought of that way since Al Gore won the popular vote and lost to Bush and gets rid of the word plurality. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to lose the popular vote. Seems straight forward, yet simple. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not bad. I would support it. Not sure it will pass though. Bod (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It has to be "and the fifth to become president after losing the national popular vote." Bod (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected after losing the popular vote. What about that? SW3 5DL (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I object to "elected" and I also think we can do better than "losing". See the phrasing for Bush. Bod (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But he did lose the popular vote. A Google search shows:
 * Trump "lost the popular vote." 12,300, 000 hits
 * Trump "received fewer votes," 891,000 SW3 5DL (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a problem with "elected" because two of the five were appointed by Congress. But I agree with SW3 in regards to "losing", since it is by far the most common way to describe the popular vote outcome. So perhaps this:
 * Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth after losing the popular vote.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But did the two also lose the popular vote? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. All five we are concerned with lost the popular vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, SW3, the version I just proposed is identical to a version you proposed, with the exception of "after losing" instead of "to lose". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. I think "to lose the popular vote" is better. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer "after losing" instead of "to lose" because we use the term "assume the presidency" earlier in the sentence - something that happens over two months after the popular vote occurs. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "To be clear," as you like to say, your suggested edit is not identical to mine. Now I know why I wrote, ". . .and the fifth elected after losing the popular vote." It's because it seems to be leaving something dangling when you get that far down the sentence. Also, the current edit says, "and the fifth elected to lose the plurality of the vote." Not having 'elected' seems a grammatical error. I think the bit about 'appointed' is not relevant. That's why "the fifth to lose the popular vote," makes more sense if 'elected' bothers you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And note also that being 'appointed' is not true. They still had an election. The Congress had to decide the winner, but that does not negate the election. Nobody has ever just been 'appointed' president of the Untied Staes. Senators/Representatives have been appointed by Governors for interim terms until elections take place, but never a president. "Elected" is correct. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Those two were appointed despite the result of the election. One of them lost both the EC and the popular vote! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will accept any of these proposals - because all of them are better than the current version. My preference is for "and the fifth to become president after losing the national popular vote." It is easy to understand, even for non-English speakers, and it reflects reality well. (I know I have said I dislike the word "losing," but this seems better than any of the alternatives here - and better supported by Reliable Sources.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with "the fifth to become president after losing the national popular vote," is not accurate. He did not become president after he lost the popular vote. He become president-elect after he won the electoral college. He is the fifth to lose the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "He is the fifth" what? He is the fifth president to take office under these circumstances, right? He became president in January; he lost the popular vote in November; becoming president came two months after losing the popular vote which is what "after" means. However, as I said, I will not insist on my preferred version. I will support any of these versions including "the fifth to lose the popular vote" if that is consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the process is the election, and must take place. He was elected, they all were, doesn't matter if the Speaker of the House had to cast the deciding vote. It's still a vote, it's never an appointment. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So now are you arguing for "the fifth to be elected after losing the popular vote"? Whereas in your note to me just above you seemed to be arguing for "the fifth to lose the popular vote"? So you would accept either of these versions, is that correct? --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. IMO we are SOOOOO close to agreement - often within a single word, and in many cases we are proposing things that other people have previously proposed. Please let's keep an open mind, not get hung up on "my version" vs. "your version", and find something we really can all accept. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My preference is "the fifth to lose the popular vote." I think it has the least problems. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think "after losing" makes more sense. As Melanie says, it is better supported in RS and it is easier to read. Both versions mean the same thing, SW3 - time for you to agree so we can move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Scjessey makes a good point, SW3. Just a few paragraphs above, you actually proposed a version that said "after losing". Does that mean that even though you prefer "to lose", you would accept "after losing"? I have other versions I prefer too, but I really want to get this settled and eliminate this neverending time sink. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"After losing," is misleading. He did not become president after losing the popular vote. He became president after winning the Electoral College vote. My edit above regarding that was in response to Bodi Peace, it was not in response to anybody else. Scjessey took it up and altered it. I do not support the use of the word 'after.' I think I've made that plain. In response to your earlier question above at 19:32 24 February, I responded in plain English, "My preference is "the fifth to lose the popular vote.". SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And, I would note that you earlier supported, "and the fifth to lose the popular vote." It feels like the two of you are attempting to use my words, taken out of context, to force me to concede a false point. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have expressed my willingness to accept many of the proposed versions, even if I don't prefer them - because I think they are all better than the "plurality" sentence which is in the article now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And, It is JFG and Scjessey creating, as you called it, but I really want to get this settled and eliminate this neverending time sink. Nobody else has opened a thread proposing the current edit in the article be changed. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW Scjessey, you suggested here that it was "time for SW3 to agree so we can move on." On the trivial matter of "to lose" vs. "after losing," are you willing to "agree so we can move on"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think SW3's rationale for excluding the much clearer "after losing" makes any sense at all; however, either of the two versions we are discussing are significantly better than what is currently in the article. I will agree to "the fifth to lose the popular vote" in the interests of putting this to bed, but I'm not happy with the unwillingness to compromise from some of the editors who have participated in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal II
Perhaps its time to move this sentence out of the lede. Donald Trump is no longer a candidate, he's now into his presidency. This edit seems to bother the few, not the many, and has taken far too much time and space. I think everybody is getting weary of this. It can move to the body of the article under the 'election' section, and the 2016 election has it's own article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that isn't going to work. Every single Trump fan who comes across this article will wonder why it is not in the lede act accordingly. It is better that we decide on something sensible and accurate, rather than let it be dictated by the proverbial barbarian horde. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It is too important. These are some of the things that make his presidency historic, and that will always be part of his presidential record. I don't much like the current sentence, but it is preferable to having nothing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

POLL: Further actions
See new section: 

Is this our consensus version?
…and the fifth to lose the popular vote. The discussants here seem to have accepted this version - some enthusiastically, others reluctantly for the sake of moving forward. And we seem to be in agreement that an RfC should offer a simple choice between what is in the article and a single alternate version. Are we to the point where we can offer an RfC comparing this version to what is in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Accept this version. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Acomplishments
I made a new article for all of the President Trump's acomplishments... Acomplishments of the President Trump... please help me expand my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef9 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can experienced editors look at this, pronto? --Neil N  talk to me 01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD. Way, way too early for anything like this, even as part of an existing article. Quickly changed to redirect since I made my comment. Objective3000 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re, please explain to this neophyte (i.e., me) the benefit of a redirect for a brand new term that could not possibly have any significant incoming links and contains one spelling error and one grammatical error. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * People will mistype stuff. What would you propose as an alternative? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain the benefit of an AfD for an article which has spellings errors, a grammatical error and cannot be possibly be considered encyclopedic. Prod or redirect and be done with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * True, PROD would have been good too. Like I said, I'm a redirect neophyte, and I've yet to grasp the point of trash redirects. Anyway I guess it's water-bridge at this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, we have redirects for common mispellings for tons of articles. Err, misspellings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, when there are existing links using the misspellings. Or, when there is a high likelihood of a search using the misspelling. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The page was moved into userspace by its creator. I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Josef9/Acomplishments of the President Trump --Neil N  talk to me 03:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is a redlink is ironically delicious. TheValeyard (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Holistic editing
I've tried to take a holistic view of the article today, and edited accordingly. Maybe will take a closer inspection later in the week.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)