Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 61

Change to "Foreign interference in election"
Hello. The section Donald_Trump would be better expressed as two sections, one with the existing title "Foreign interference in election" and one titled "Campaign interaction with Russia." The existing sourcing is too weak to keep what we have. We say: "American intelligence sources stated with 'high confidence'[411] that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump by hacking into computers of Trumps' opponents,[412] and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election.[413]" This is a falsehood. Somebody added "and that..." from reporting from The New York Times concatenating a sentence that presently claims American intelligence sources. I'll wait a day before making this change. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be two sections, just two sentences. "American intelligence sources stated with 'high confidence'[411] that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump by hacking into computers of Trumps' opponents.[412] Members of Trump's campaign were reportedly in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election.[413]"
 * Is that better? --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: IMO that whole section needs redoing. It's cluttered and disorganized, as often happens when sections are built up over months, one item at a time. There is no need to mention Medvedchuk, he's a bit player. We need to define who Kislyak is. We should remove things that are not supported by sources, such as "on business unrelated to the campaign" and "who volunteered to testify to congressional inquiry". Sources actually say that Kushner "is not a target of the investigation" rather than the melodramatic "not charged with any crime". We need to clarify the secret-channel request. I'll bring a proposed rewrite here for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No it is not better. Two separate topics are conflated. The Russians interfered is one, and the Trump campaign's involvement or not is another. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree Kislyak is a first mention that needs definition. But no, Medvedchuk is an influential person, and it is nonsense to say he's "a bit player." -SusanLesch (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The topics are closely related - almost impossible to describe separately IMO. Maybe we should change the title of the section from "Foreign interference in the election" to something like "Connections between the Trump campaign and Russia"? We do need to keep in mind, this is a biography. All of these things are described in great detail in other articles. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They can best be treated in separate sections. Further, be careful. You listed things as unsourced that are sourced to Reuters. The bank "met with Kushner along with other representatives of U.S. banks and business as part of preparing a new corporate strategy." And "Kushner offered in March to be interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee...." I doubt the secret channel needs to be mentioned (General Kelly thinks it was quite an ordinary request) but I will agree with one rewrite above: that Kushner "is not a target of the investigation." -SusanLesch (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the bank says it was part of corporate strategy, but part of corporate strategy could include cultivating relations with the Trump people, so it is OR to say the meeting was unrelated to the campaign (Kushner was not a representative of a "U.S. bank or business", he was a representative of Trump). So I think we should mention the meeting but not try to assess the content. I missed that the "volunteered" detail was in that source, so thank you. The secret channel request is getting massively covered, and General Kelly (a member of the administration so he could be considered an apologist) is the only person who does not find it strange. The ambassador himself was "taken aback" by the request, and it has been described as "unusual", "extraordinary" and "abnormal", "extremely dangerous" and "inappropriate unless carefully coordinated with the Obama administration, which was in office at the time". I'll keep Medvedchuk if you insist, but he is not mentioned in the article Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as far as I could see, and his biography does not mention any connection with this subject, so it seems peripheral to me.
 * What would you call the separate sections? One about "foreign interference" which would be basically a single sentence, and one called ... what? --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Campaign interaction with Russia." Adding to your points:
 * 1) Reuters said earlier that according to Vnesheconombank, Jared Kushner represented Kushner Companies at the meeting. Surely, they could have been trying to cultivate relations but that's not what they said, so that idea could easily also be OR. But because this meeting took place at Kislyak’s request I concede that point.
 * 2) I also concede the secret channel because Kelly said more: "if those communications used Russian equipment, that 'would be considered to be … somewhat compromised.'"
 * 3) Medvedchuk is close to Putin and once was his courier. Reuters found his name among contacts with the Trump campaign and Reuters is reliable.
 * I propose we split the task. I'll write "Foreign interference..." and you write "Campaign interaction...". Let's see what we can come up with by tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just the campaign - it's the transition and the White House. How about "Interactions between Trump associates and Russia"? I don't want to say Trump himself because we really don't have anything on that subject. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, yes. How about "Interactions between associates and Russia"? (Russia and associates interaction?) Trump is implied in his biography. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I have mine written, but I will wait until you write yours so as to avoid duplication. Go ahead and delete whatever doesn't belong in the Foreign Interference section, I have copies of everything I need. You could ping me when your section is done. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, my section begins with a sentence about his "bromance" with Putin, so it isn't JUST about his associates (although it mostly is). What would you think about just "Interactions with Russia" as a title? If it's in the 2016 election section it will be obvious what it is about. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like concise headings. Done for now. It's all yours. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Investigations
You reverted my edit adding a looking into the Russian interference affair. I understand that you are busy splitting the subjects between the election interference on one side, and the links between Trump people and Russia on the other, however the investigations were started as a direct consequence of the intelligence reports, so I believe they are noteworthy in that short section. I don't see them mentioned anywhere else in the article. Can I restore the sentence? — JFG talk 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does any reliable source explicitly state that? If so then I would support a restoration with a citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The paragraph I inserted had a source per investigation. They all make it clear that Russian interference must be thoroughly investigated in a bipartisan fashion. — JFG talk 15:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see the sources but I can't find where it explicitly states that both issues are in the same investigation, but rather that they are both being investigated. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. We could certainly phrase it differently, perhaps you have an idea? Fact is, there would be no "Russian collusion" investigations if there was no "Russian interference" story. — JFG talk 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, JFG. No, I would suggest that you not restore your paragraph. Fully one third of what you added describes Trump associates interaction, not Russian interference. You know, just as a comment, I am not hearing American outrage at what the Russians did, except maybe by Senator Lindsey Graham. I would appreciate your not clouding this section of Trump's biography with more tangents. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, we're on the same page (non-American here): the fewer tangents, the better! However I'm afraid that leaving this section with just two lines of contents might attract quite a bit of tangential edits pushing the latest "Meh Russians" narratives. — JFG talk 18:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I'm curious. I did not receive your ping for some reason. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I first saved my edit with a space in your user name. Saving again doesn't ping; sorry about that. — JFG talk 18:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That explains it, thank you! You should add your paragraph to the Interaction section. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is now a separate article about Links between Trump associates and Russian officials; I have placed a hatnote pointing there, that should do. — JFG talk 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017
Can you guys re-write his intro to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman currently serving as the 45th President of the United States. Before his presidency, he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization, from 1971 to 2017, and host of the The Apprentice, from 2004 to 2015. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:54 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done. See Talk:Donald Trump item #15. You would need consensus to change this anyways. Sky  Warrior  23:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Article series infobar omission
The article series infobar omits reference to his 2000 presidential campaign. If the reason is due to its lack of substance, I would argue otherwise given its Trump's first major political run. In contrast, Joe Biden's article series infobar references both of his bids for the presidency. If this has already been resolved, please ignore this. Frevangelion (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to consider the Reform party to have run primaries equal in notability to those of the Democratic and Republican parties. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. It was Trump's first serious attempt to run for political office, and effectively marks the true starting point of his desire to be a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Disposition of Trump push back on media to U.S. officials
Sorry but your edit made no sense to me. Your edit summary was: "IMO this paragraph goes beyond the sources and has too much detail for a biography. Reducing it to a sentence and moving it to "Russian interference"". The edit summary was untrue. Also the sources refer specifically to interaction between Russia and the Trump camp, not to Russian interference in the election. My paragraph was sourced to Mother Jones who gave us a summary of articles from the following sources: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian. I am leaving now for several hours and hope that you find a way to improve the paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Susan. Right now neither your original paragraph nor my one-sentence summary of the paragraph are in the article, because both have been challenged and can't be restored without consensus. So we can discuss it here and get second opinions without any time pressure. Here's what we are talking about:

Your paragraph, which was placed in "Interactions with Russia":
 * In 2017, Trump asked then-FBI director James Comey, director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, and NSA director Michael Rogers to push back on news media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia. His chief of staff, Reince Priebus asked FBI acting director Andrew McCabe to do the same, and White House staff asked Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr and his counterpart in the House, Devin Nunes, to help dissolve news reports about alleged collusion.

My one-sentence summary, which I placed in "Russian interference":
 * Trump has tried several times to get American intelligence officials to drop the investigations or to publicly refute the news reports.

I was initially dismayed by that paragraph because it says "media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia" and "news reports about collusion". But in fact there have been NO news reports actually alleging collusion; the Mother Jones article mentions "possible collusion". Somebody changed one of the mentions to "alleged" collusion but IMO that doesn't go far enough, we need to completely get rid of the false claim that reliable sources have reported collusion. They have reported contacts, and some have talked about "possible collusion", but "media reports of his associates' collusion with Russia" do not exist. So I'm glad you took the paragraph out of the article while we discuss it; I had been wondering how I could reword it in the meantime to get rid of that serious misinformation.

The second reason for my edit was that IMO this is way too much detail, too much information for an already overlong biography. These various actions by Trump are spelled out in detail in the linked articles "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" and "Links between Trump associates and Russia officials". So I reduced this to a single sentence, summarizing that Trump has tried repeatedly to get people to end the investigations or publicly dispute the news reports.

My third change, moving the information from "interactions with Russia" to "Russian interference", is debatable, because it is related to both. Some of his actions were directed toward stopping the Flynn investigation; firing Comey may have been directed toward stopping the Russia investigation; the approaches to Coats, Rogers, Nunes, and Burr were about disputing the contacts. So it has some aspects of both subjects, but I thought it fit well into your paragraph about Trump's pushback against the Russia investigation.

Looking for discussion and hopefully consensus what to do with this information. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * To your points:
 * 1) A correction had already been made by SlackerDelphi, fixing at least half the problem which clearly was my mistake. Your choice was to blow away the paragraph instead of fix it.
 * 2) Trump tried 3 times. I agree that, borderline, 3 is several, but we're pushing it.
 * 3) We have to be more careful with sourcing. The article I cited listed 6 people (total) who were contacted by either Trump (3), Priebus (1), or an unnamed White House official (2). In every case, the object was to push away media reports about contacts between the Trump people and Russia. The source simply does not offer "aspects of both subjects."
 * I could agree to a one sentence summary if it is accurate (careful with numbers and describes people correctly), if it is correctly sourced, and it is located in the proper section (in this case Interaction).
 * Sorry for introducing a left-leaning source like Mother Jones. They described works that are behind a paywall. Everyone can read them. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Point 1: No, the addition of "alleged" did not solve the problem, because there have not been allegations of collusion either - just vague suggestions like "possible". The word "collusion" is a very significant word with legal implications, and should not be mentioned without strong sourcing. The media are being very careful not to say there is evidence of collusion - at most they say something like "raises the possibility of collusion". Whatever we do with this material, it must not say that there were media reports or allegations of collusion, because there haven't been. Yes, I could have fixed this if that was the only problem. My reason for "blowing away the paragraph" was not this word, it was that I felt the paragraph was too long with too much detail.


 * Point 2: I think "several" is appropriate when you count both Trump and White House officials (six attempts by your count) but I'll let it go. I do think a single sentence, rather than a lot of detail, is appropriate for this biography.


 * Point 3: In every case, the object was to push away media reports about contacts between the Trump people and Russia. Well, almost every case: one of the cited interventions by Trump was trying to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. The source article doesn't mention the other attempts to stop investigations - the firing of Comey (arguably to stop the Russia investigation) and the earlier approach by "senior administration officials" asking intelligence officials to intervene with the FBI to stop the Flynn investigation. I don't want to pile on even more detail so we'll skip those instances. That leaves the Coats, Rogers. McCabe, Burr, and Nunes approaches, and they were all requests for for a public relations pushback. So I'm OK with keeping it in the "interactions" section.


 * Two possible one-sentence versions, keeping the same source reference:


 * On various occasions Trump and other senior White House officials requested members of congress and heads of other administration departments to publicly dispute the news reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia.


 * On various occasions Trump and other senior White House officials requested the FBI director, the FBI acting director, the Director of National Intelligence, the director of the National Security Agency, and members of congress to publicly dispute the news reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia.


 * Other changes which I would recommend to trim that section, keeping in mind that this is a biography of Trump: delete the sentence about Manafort being fired. Delete the reference to Medvedchuck. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry to fight with you. Quickly we seem to reach agreement, more than I can say about some other Wikipedia editors that leave scars. Thank you for the reminder about collusion. I support removing NABU and Medvedchuk for now, certainly if we don't have room to mention Devin Nunes. I don't understand, why is the Flynn investigation not about interaction between Trump people and Russia? Anyway, only minor tweaks will shorten this a tad:
 * In 2017, Trump and other senior White House officials asked the Director of National Intelligence, the NSA director, the FBI director, and two chairs of congressional committees to publicly dispute the news reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia.
 * -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Can we go ahead and add it, since we have reached agreement? If you agree, go ahead and do it. I will trim the Manafort and Medvedchuck material but I will have to wait out my 24 hours since my last revert. And yes, even when you and I disagree we seem to be able to work it out cordially. The ability of reasonable people to reach agreement is foundational to Wikipedia's functioning. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Description as climate change denier in the lead
It's high time to add the description climate change denier somewhere in the lead. As Mother Jones notes, "Donald Trump has been a climate change denier for years, alleging that global warming is a Chinese invention and declaring that cold winter days prove that it's a hoax." These are clearly crazy, fringe, conspiracy theories.

The Guardian now also calls him "America’s worst-ever president" who "is doing his best to ruin the world for our children and grandchildren." --Tataral (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if they are lead worthy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSTYLE#BALANCE requires that biographies be fair to their subjects at all times. You would accordingly want to add balancing information, such as: Wigley, T. (NCAR), Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Jacoby, H. (MIT) et al., "Uncertainties in Climate Stabilization", Climatic Change (2009) 97: 85. "For one of the [Integrated Assessment] models, warming in the [most stringent stabilization] case is actually greater out to 2040 than in the reference case due to the effect of decreasing SO2 emissions that occur as a side effect of the policy-driven reduction in CO2 emissions." --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Side note to @Dervorguilla, I don't think BLPSTYLE#BALANCE is saying that we must add material that some people perceive as positive to counter material that some people perceive as negative. Also, I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say with that quote. Do you perhaps have a secondary source that analyzes it, putting it into terms that regular people like me understand? Certainly they're not saying that we should be increasing the sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. ~Awilley (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC) I did a little additional reading into the paper, and it looks like they are saying that according to their model, the most aggressive cutting of CO2 emissions would result in a slightly larger rise in global temperatures in the short term, followed by a much smaller rise in temperatures in the long term, compared to doing nothing. Was that your understanding as well? ~Awilley (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It says, "This effect is less noticeable for the other stabilization cases, but still leads to policies having virtually no effect on global-mean temperatures out to around 2060." (!) As I understand the (mainstream) chemistry, stratospheric SO2 + ½ O2 + H2O -> H2SO4 droplets that back-scatter solar radiation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From "The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles": "We insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior... That means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Climate change denialism is am extremist, anti-science, fringe point of view. It does not get lead airtime side-by-side with the actual scientific facts of climate change, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The federal National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is managed by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and funded by the National Science Foundation. H. Jacoby was the Pounds Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and the co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Valeyard & Dervorguilla: Just to clear things up, climate change denialism is indeed WP:Fringe, and the paper cited does not support climate change denialism. So you're both right. ~Awilley (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In Trump's speech today, he mentioned that, "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations it is estimated it would only produce a two tenths of one degree - think of that, this much - Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100." So he seems to now believe that human activity does indeed affect the climate, despite prior comments that the whole thing is a hoax. That doesn't mean he is correct about the magnitude of the problem or the magnitude of the Paris Agreement's effect, but it does mean something.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the lede, because he has not been consistent on this. In fact he has been all over the map. Even in withdrawing from the Paris agreement, he didn't say there is no climate change; he said the pact is bad for American business (and immediately implied he was open to negotiating something else). --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose there's almost never a reason to include the news of the day in the lede. If this is still his most important political position in a month, then maybe. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the lead per Anythingyouwant whose comment is exactly right. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture change
Why was the official White House photo changed to this low resolution photo? There is a precedent of using the official White House photos of the president as the infobox picture. Sovietmessiah (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. There was a copyright problem.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Are presbyterians christians?
''They explained they were mainline Protestants, the same Christian tradition in which Trump, a self-described Presbyterian, was raised and claims membership. Like many mainline pastors, they told the President-elect, they lead diverse congregations. Trump nodded along, then posed another question to the two men: "But you're all Christians?" "Yes, we're all Christians."'' http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/

Some people have interpreted this as Trump being unaware presbyterians are christians, which seems extreme even for by the Donald's standards - given that he is a lifelong member of the church and referenced his Presbyterian identity during the campaign. It seems to me that the question was a slightly botched rhetorical flourish, we-are-all-children-of-god sentiment that came out wrong. CNN doesn't interpret the quote. Does it deserve inclusion? I'd say no. `NPalgan2 (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No Far too trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Article has many undocumented and biased slanderous entries
Just a sampling of the undocumented and slanderous swipes contained in this politically motivated and highly biased article:

The entire introductory paragraphs are totally without reference citations making them suspiciously opinionated and libelous slander and falsehoods. This unreferenced body of opinion and misinformation is below the Wiki standard for citation and substantiation.

"After Trump made controversial remarks about illegal immigrants in 2015, he lost business contracts with several companies that summer,..." Exactly what were these remarks, how were they controversial, who are they controversial to? Further, the next sentence claims that these so-called controversial remarks resulted in a reduction of Trump's fortune but does not cite a source for this assertion.

"Forbes believed his net worth estimate was "a whopper", figuring it was $4.1 billion in 2015 (405th in the world, 133d in the U.S.).[78][79] ". In this slander, reference 78 is non existent and reference 79 does not cite any facts to support its assertion, it is just an assertion without any supporting data and does not belong in a Wiki caliber article. And the word "whopper" is never used in the article making it a lie in the Wiki article by implying that it was quoted from the source. Who said it?

The list of personal cutting remarks and slanders and falsehoods and fabricated false facts continues on throughout this article. Further, the article has purposefully been closed in order to inhibit tagging of the myriad unsubstantiated entries. this article can only be described as a hatchet job, likely politically motivated by political vandals and needs to be edited by an honest editor and supplied with truthful citations where assertions and facts are cited.

2601:342:0:E3D0:E8ED:E94D:AD56:922C (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Reference 78 does exist, and reference 79 specifically uses the phrase "a whopper". The rest of your comments are merely innuendo and best ignored. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually removed the original post and left a discretionary sanctions alert and an explanatory note on the IP's talk page. restored indicating there were some BLP policy violations that had to be corrected immediately but did not explain or act further. --Neil N  talk to me 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the outstanding policy violation (WP:BLPSTYLE#BALANCE), by adding the subject's response. Note that the material could influence a reasonable investor in making an investment decision. No further objections. Proceed as you will. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point out where the IP mentioned this policy violation that had to be corrected immediately. --Neil N  talk to me 20:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From reference 79: "Properties under development: $293 million (Trump); $0 (Forbes). Trump claims $300 million in assets and $7.14 million in liabilities. This is not a piece of the portfolio that we've valued." Forbes "does not cite any facts to support its assertion" that the "properties under development" portfolio is worth $0.
 * My edit does not directly address this point but it does add some helpful balancing information. I'd be happy to let another editor add the needed additional data or to add it myself.
 * The remainder of the user's comment is wholly without merit and so may be (and should be) summarily removed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can probably tell, I'm not particularly happy with the restoration with little justification of a post that denigrates and casts some serious aspersions upon all the editors who have worked hard on ensuring this article has a balanced POV. If a similar situation occurs in the future, please consider if wholesale restoration of such material is really needed to point out a perceived issue. --Neil N  talk to me 23:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to agree with you as to 90.9% of the post. Yet the remaining 9.1% seems (to me) well justified. "Reference 79 does not cite any facts to support its assertion, it is just an assertion without any supporting data and does not belong in a Wiki caliber article." A fair reading of Reference 79 does indeed suggest that the facts it cites don't support the assertion it makes. And no editor has yet questioned the accuracy or fairness of this reading.
 * To speak more forthrightly: The cited facts appear to contradict the assertion.
 * According to Forbes's own data, the subject's most-likely net worth was significantly greater than $4.1 billion.
 * I'd never bothered to read the itemized 'footnotes' to Forbes's report. I accordingly ask 2601:342:0:E3D0:E8ED:E94D:AD56:922C to pardon my negligent error of omission. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 04:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Navbox problems
All but 1 of the navboxes aren't showing. What's wrong? GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is hitting the template transclusion limits. A few will need to be dropped. --Neil N  talk to me 04:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed 3 of them. Now, the rest are visible. GoodDay (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't the limit mostly affected by the 600+ references with cite ? — JFG talk 11:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have put much effort into removing all unnecessary templates and have been replacing most templates over the last few weeks with their manual style equivalents where possible. In the end streamlining which navboxes we choose to keep will help some, especially the ones I've mentioned above which use the template much. Jeanjung212 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please in the future read or search the talk page to see if it is something already being discussed? Your approach was heavy handed and you made no attempt to reach a consensus. We are already discussing this above in Talk:Donald Trump to determine the best selection to remove and keep. Jeanjung212 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Move "Tax Returns" to 2016 Campaign Section?
A possibly contentious suggestion. Wikipedia doesn't generally comment on the tax returns of public figures. The political impact of the material should be in the Presidential Campaign section. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving to the campaign section. His tax returns have little relevance in his personal life, but are prominent in the context of his campaign. κατάστασ  η  03:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hi, I was wondering if we can reach a consensus on Navboxes in the article and which ones we can remove and which should be kept? The article is exceeding the Post-expand include size by so much that the navboxes currently don't even display. I've done just about everything I can to reduce the post-expand include size in the article without changing the content up to this point but have pretty much run out of things that I can do and the problem appears to only be getting worse. I think the best place to start is removing the leaders navboxes because of their overuse of a total of 78 times and the resources they consume. These navboxes I recommend removing are:   and. Jeanjung212 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all, or at least most, navboxes that are a result of him holding the office of the President of the United States should be move to the page of his presidency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support Emir's idea. — JFG talk 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This would be good also, from an initial review I think these Navboxes are ones that certainly can be moved to Presidency of Donald Trump:


 * with these probably up for debate to keep or not on this article:


 * all the remaining Navboxes make sense to stay on the article I think. Jeanjung212 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd keep, as it's in all the other US Presidents articles. All of the family business boxes should be deleted, as well. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove at least . It doesn't even link to this article, so it does not provide the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navigation that navboxes are supposed to offer. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the removal of also makese sense. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since GoodDay ignored that we were discussing this and unilaterally removed several templates, I believe that many of these templates need to be re-added. This is the personal article for Donald Trump, not solely focused on the presidency. The offices/distinctions I think should be returned to their previous state as well as bringing back and  when the other political templates are moved.  I think is fine being removed currently as it doesn't add much and there already is considerable article space and wikilinks devoted to it in the main article. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We should treat this article like the other US Presidents bio articles, concerning the navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case we need to remember Other stuff exists, and that Trump is unique amongst former POTUS's in many ways. Navboxes are to enable readers to navigate the project amongst different articles and not merely matters concerning arguably the most notable but not solely notable aspect of his life. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pence image
I'm too late for voting but E is fine for me. I'm wondering, though : aren't we going to have the same problem with the Mike Pence photo, since it was apparently taken by the same person ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From what i'm getting, we will but obvious shitty work at OTRS meant we just deal with Donnie's images for now.. The Donnie images were tagged earlier last month and then nothing, nothing was brought up directly on commons until a globally banned editor brought it up a few days back..-- Stemoc 11:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OTRS did an excellent job of making sure that we don't violate the photographer's copyright and upholding our policies on non-free content. I have no idea how a "globally banned editor" could even post on Commons, since they would be, you know, banned.- MrX 11:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As if bans and blocks have ever stopped anyone lol..-- Stemoc 03:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion A discussion is taking place at Talk:Mike_Pence. Please post your comments there and not here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

666 References
Okay users, that is obviously intentional. Even though it is subversively hilarious IMO, it is still technically WP:NOTHERE. -Sleyece 12:47, 03 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If your "obviously intentional" is remotely serious, and it's impossible to know absent an emoticon, see Conspiracy theory and WP:AGF. But feel free to add a reference to make it 667. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sleyece will be glad to know that after recent prunings it is down to 619. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly somebody was not in on the evil plot. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Doesn't the family of Trump adviser Jared Kushner own 666 Fifth Avenue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a little more pruning, and we can get it down to 616. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! In the interests of PRESERVE, let's restore those refs and get it back up to 666. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017
You guys notice the page is hacked with a message? 73.98.160.69 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please be more specific  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it now. Probably someone messing with a template. Will ask folks to dig into it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed elsewhere. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox & 45th linkage.
I understand that this is the most heavily trafficked of the US Presidents articles. But please, can we stop linking 45th to List of Presidents of the United States, in the infobox? We should be keeping these infoboxes as consistent as possible. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be linked. If being consistent is the issue then go and fix the other 43 articles (Trump is the 45th POTUS but 44th person to be POTUS). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The list article should not be linked in the infobox per WP:EGG. It's already linked twice in the article, including in the lead sentence. Twice is enough.- MrX 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Disappointing
Corrections welcome here because possibly I misunderstand: User:Power~enwiki made at least 15 major edits and nobody here said a word. I agree with a few of those edits however some were disturbing and I can't object. It takes too much time to reach consensus and add material to this article, only to fall through a hole in the sanctions process, and have to start over again after any user with an account decides it's his day to edit. My time is worth more studying for school. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If there's any specific edit you want to discuss, please provide a link. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This was previously discussed in the section "Remove Side Ventures" on this page. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You proposed "Remove Side ventures" and got one reply on the topic. That section refers for the most part to James Comey. So you had license from one of this article's editors in the person of JFG for removing Side ventures, not for 15 major edits. I'm sorry but I found that and the reaction to be disappointing. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There were half a dozen other editors in that section, and none of them objected to my top-level proposal or JFG's second of that proposal. I assumed there was a consensus for that re-structuring, and a separate consensus for leaving the Comey section as-written.  The "Side Ventures" section had 7 sub-sections, and I handled them individually to allow for easier partial reverts. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 7 sounds fair enough. Pardon my being taken aback by your changes. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , you can just revert any removal that is not supported by consensus, then Power~enwiki can try to get consensus for their bold edits.- MrX 02:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * MrX, thank you. Power~enwiki, I undid one of your edits. In 24 hours I can do another. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Consecutive edits count as one revert. Thus, you can do multiple undos at one time which may be better for discussion purposes rather than drawing out the revert process over multiple days. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So I can safely make one more undo today? If so then others can take care of stuff they cared about. As I read it, sanctions mean substituting ONE revert where WP:3RR says THREE. Is that correct? Thanks for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What he means is, if you make multiple uninterrupted reverts in succession in a short amount of time it counts as a single revert. Which would be fine under 1RR since it is considered one revert. My understanding of the logic of that is, if you are able to do an edit page of the whole page and change all the things at once it counts as one revert. PackMecEng (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng is correct. Any edits, reverts, undos, etc., must be done in succession with no intervening edits done by other editors to be considered one "revert". If you're still confused, post a note on my talk page and I will try to clarify further. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you, PackMecEng and NeilN. Missed my chance. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to talk about the change or revert any of my changes that you list on this page, I have no patience for what appears to be an attempt to game the revert rules without discussing your actual concerns. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Edit wars are banned on this article, which is subject to discretionary sanctions. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There should be one section with the word "Russia" in its title. There can be additional coverage under Foreign Policy and the Comey section where appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The first revert is not an edit war, it's the standard way to dispute an edit. If you were to re-revert without talk page discussion, that would generally be viewed as EW. This concept is encapsulated in the essay WP:BRD, in which the R stands for revert. (I have removed your bulleting above, as this is not a list-formatted section.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Those were some rather large shifts in the article. What should really happen next is the D in BRD. So before the slow edit war starts, what are some of the concerns with the changes? PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, now that the large BOLD edits/deletions have been REVERTED by Susan, we can proceed with DISCUSSION. An attempt to restore the deletions without consensus would be edit warring. When in doubt, err on the side of WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are not my edits, they were Power~enwiki. I have not edited the article. Agreed that restoration of revisions without consensus is edit warring. I am fairly neutral on the changes myself. What were the issues you saw with them? PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! I got you mixed up. Sorry about that. I'll fix the above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * General comment: It's no secret that the page is too big and that it needs trimming, and experienced editors who are new to the article and who aren't pushing a POV are typically given more flexibility than "the regulars" to make major edits. I suspect that is why there was no great outcry when User:Power~enwiki cropped some 25,000 characters in one day. That said, some of the edits made me a bit uncomfortable with the amount of material that was being blanked without leaving a summary. For example:
 * I agree that having an entire subsection on the subject is too much. But it does deserve a sentence and a link to the main article.
 * The edit summary "No 2017 content in the "2016 election" section" is a weak rationale for blanking the subsection. An investigation of a 2016 election bleeding into 2017 doesn't make it less relevant.
 * Again with the section blanking. I would have condensed it down to a sentence elsewhere in the article, containing a link to the primary topic article.
 * In short, while I take a dim view of editors who use WP:PRESERVE alone as argument for inclusion, I do think it is a good idea to try to preserve the main point of sections that you're removing. ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In order:
 * I don't see how any of the content here is relevant and feel the existing link to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is sufficient. The "Trump may have said something which suggested information about a foreign agent" story is news-of-the-week and not notable at this level.
 * This change was already reverted; the content is merged into the existing Russia section in the 2016 election.
 * We don't discuss any of his other investors here, such as Deutsche Bank. It's not disputed that Trump uses foreign funding for real estate investments because no US bank will lend to him, but I see no way to salvage a discussion of that as a section-level block of content in this article. I encourage anyone to try to add a 1-2 sentence summary under "Legal affairs and bankruptcies" if they can make it work. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was his height removed from the infobox?
When I go to the Wiki page there is no mention of his height. When I google "Wiki Donald Trump Height", then Google uses Wikipedia as a source of him being 1m98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.109.39 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Small typo but I don't have access to edit
"figuring it was $4.1 billion in 2015 (405th in the world, 133d in the U.S.)."

133d should be changed to 133rd EggsInMyPockets (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the help. PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference
Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference.Casprings (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahem. That title tells me that Donald Trump is interfering with the Russian Investigation. Shouldn't it be Investigation into Donald Trump's interference with the investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 elections, or something like that?- MrX 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need a little more specific than that, perhaps something like Investigation into Donald John Trump's alleged interference with the investigation into the confirmed Russian Interference in the 2016 United States elections. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really long. Isn't "Russian Investigation" okay shorthand for what the FBI and others are doing. Also, it's pretty established he interfered. Obstruction of justice, maybe not. No need for alleged.Casprings (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Russian investigation" is ambiguous. Is it an investigation by Russians or of Russians?- MrX 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see this as an unnecessary WP:POVFORK – feel free to comment on AfD. Kudos to and  for the fun title suggestions!  — JFG talk 00:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO it's way too early for an article like this. Maybe later if the Special Counsel starts making noise about it. But the information we have right now is perfectly able to be covered in a few paragraphs in the "White House attempts to influence the investigation" section in the "Russian interference" article. Also, I don't think we have solid enough sourcing for a bald assertion in Wikipedia's voice that he interfered. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. Let's not outrace the news. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony about news article
Footnote 386 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example: Easley, Jonathan. rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't several places have to print corrections or retractions after Comey testified? I know CNN and ABC did, NYT did as well for other stories. Not sure what to do with this one though. Perhaps find a different source on that one.PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comey said not merely that the NYT piece got a fact or two wrong, but rather that the whole article was almost entirely wrong. So I suggest we continue to use the NYT piece but also mention that Comey said it's almost entirely wrong.  For us to merely switch over to another source that followed the reporting of the NYT would simply be to entrench and hide the dispute about accuracy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support adding Comey's statement. PackMecEng (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After citing this NYT article, we could say something like "However, former FBI Director James Comey has called that New York Times article almost entirely wrong."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think something like that would be fine.- MrX 01:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I'll make a formal edit request if no one else puts it in.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You propose it, you write it. SOP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I promised not to edit this article for a while, and a while isn't up yet.. Call me a kibitzer.  🙂&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "After citing this NYT article we could say something like 'However,...'" I disagree. An encyclopedia is not the place for that kind of he-said-she-said. If newer and better information discredits a source we're using, we simply remove the source and update the material to reflect the best sources available. The former director of the FBI is obviously a better source than whatever "current and former" officials talked to the NYTimes in February. ~Awilley (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Yes check.svg Removed here. ~Awilley (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement. Since we don't know who the current and former officials are, or what they know, or for that matter whether Comey knows, we can't choose who we are going to believe, especially now that Comey is private citizen. For the same reason, we can't state that Trump tried to interfere with a criminal investigation based only on Comey's testimony. - MrX 02:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E/C... Awilley is right. We should just leave out that source and revise accordingly. BTW, the authors stand by their story. One of them was on Rachel Maddow and they had quite a discussion. The FBI has not responded to their requests for verification, so we really don't know what in that article was inaccurate or misleading. So until we get some clarification that would be of redeeming value, it's best to ignore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX. The NYT is evidently sticking by their story, and Comey is sticking by his, so we should simply say so instead of trying to decide who's right.  Anyway, it's quite healthy for readers to be aware of such conflicts so they won't believe everything they read, and the NYT itself says the conflict is notable.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EDITORIAL, it's "A made statement B; C made statement D", not "A made statement B; however, C made statement D." --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * when you have situations like this with conflicting sources, it behooves us to look at what we are trying to say with those sources. The sentence in question says that Trump staff, particularly Flynn, were in contact with Russians, which doesn't actually need the NYTimes piece as a source. If we were to add the sentence you supported above, we would end up with the following: "Members of Trump's campaign and later his White House staff, particularly Flynn, were in contact with Russian officials both before and after the November election. However, former FBI Director James Comey has called that New York Times article almost entirely wrong." Is that really an effective use of space? Or is there something extra we want to say there that does rely on the NYTimes article, so that we can dispute its accuracy in the next sentence? ~Awilley (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Did this part of the article change since this thread was opened? There is no source with the title "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence" in the article, and footnote 386 is a Reuters source. Can we at least be clear on what we're actually discussing?- MrX 20:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I changed it here. I removed the NYTimes source and the link to Jared Kushner who was only mentioned in passing in the Reuters article, and who was not mentioned at all in the NYTimes article. ~Awilley (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Then that makes the discussion moot right? There is no claim from the NYT and no need to include Comey's repudiation of it.- MrX 23:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ~Awilley (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Side Ventures"?
This article is too large right now. I propose that the entire "Side Ventures" section be removed.

I note that none of his these ventures compare in importance to his three most important and notable activities:
 * 1) running The Trump Organization for many years
 * 2) being host of The Apprentice for many seasons
 * 3) being President of the United States

Be it the USFL or Trump University, they're not nearly as important. They should be removed from this article and included only in Business career of Donald Trump, or else discussed more briefly in the "Real estate business" section. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Spin them off to the business career article and keep a 5-line summary here. — JFG talk 02:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Next on the chopping block: sections "Dismissal of James Comey" and "Disclosure of classified information to Russia". These were short-term events and they are extensively covered in dedicated articles already. — JFG talk 02:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the Comey section for now, firing the director of the FBI is (potentially still) a major event. "Disclosure of classified information to Russia" can probably go. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would absolutely oppose removing the Comey section. I don't see the reason for classifying it as a "short-term event" at this time. See also James Comey Senate testimony: America braces for a historic political moment, The Guardian (June 4, 2017): "What the former FBI director tells a committee on Thursday could decide whether Trump survives his first term. The stakes have never been higher ... When James Comey, the former FBI director, stands before a Senate committee on Thursday to give evidence about the president who fired him, it will be one of the most dramatic moments in US political history. ..." Neutralitytalk 18:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the show! I for one hope he brings his memos — JFG talk 05:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, "short term events". That's rich, trying to brush off the firing of an FBI director for refusal to go along with a cover-up. TheValeyard (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should retain a brief (maybe a single sentence) mention of the Comey firing on this page. The classified information material can probably be cut if the full article is mentioned somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cover-up or not, the event is abundantly covered (covfefed?) in TWO separate articles. This bio does not need so much detail about it. Keep a 5-line summary and the hatnote to the detailed articles. — JFG talk 05:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Comey firing section should remain more or less as is. The detail about Trump's ever-changing reasons for firing Comey provide necessary context for why the firing is so noteworthy. Trump's alleged attempts to obstruct an FBI investigation are equally important. The firing is a seminal event of historic significance, in many ways similar to the Watergate scandal.- MrX 15:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why it is covered in two other articles, one completely about that subject alone. It does not need to be completely covered again here. Just a a paragraph or so and links to the pertinent articles. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would perhaps be a convincing argument if this article did not also have extensive sections on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016; Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016; United States presidential election, 2016; Business career of Donald Trump; and The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) .- MrX 16:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, those should probably be trimmed down as well. The article is getting overly long as it is. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have the Comey section. — JFG talk 06:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored. You should not have ignored the objections of several editors.- MrX 11:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out
Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray

Casprings (talk) 12:04, June 7, 2017‎ (UTC)

First name of the grandfather
For those who don't remember me: I am the one in WP who knows about the President's German roots, and I wrote the relevant articles in de.WP. Mostly based on Gwenda Blair: The Trumps.

Donald's German grandpa was born Friedrich Trump in Germany, and it is fair to mention this. He sticked to this name in his first years in NY where he lived in a mostly German milieu (which was common in the US before WW I). But when he went to Seattle, he became an American in every respect (Blair) and changed his first name to Fred or Frederick. So in the sentence concerning his death, Friedrich should be set back to Frederick. And somehow the discrepancy should be explained.

In case of questions, please ping me. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. — JFG talk 05:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Biased line in the beginning of this article?
There is the line "Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage." right at the beginning of this article. That seems like it is a bit biased, because while true that a lot of statements were false, that is true for many if not all US politicians. This statement should go under the 2016 Presidential Campaign section, or be reworded as such to sound less biased. Maybe something as simple as just removing the "or false".

2601:8C2:4280:C0D:D51A:6EAB:5A4D:F7A1 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it actually reflects factual, verifiable coverage of the subject. Whether it applies to other politicians or not is not relevant. See item 7 in the sticky: .- MrX 15:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To be more on point, we could even expand it: "All of his campaign statements were controversial, false, or reportedly false..." (Well, almost all.) Wouldn't you agree? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so, but if you know of some sources that support such wording I would be happy to take a look at them.- MrX 11:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2017
Infobox

Please change from

"The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)"

To

"The Wharton School (B.S.  in  Econ.)"
 * (B.S. in Econ.) ← correction --Schistocyte (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Schistocyte (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Schistocyte. May I ask why we would want double spaces? Someone appears to have inserted a thin space on purpose. A typographer might agree that less space is necessary after a full stop. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I intended to suggest single spaces: "(B.S. in Econ.)" Apologizes for the confusion, SusanLesch (I submitted the edit request on a mobile device). Relatedly, when looking at the article on mobile, the thin spaces seem to be less apparent. At least from my perspective, I honestly thought it was a typo. While I am not an expert in typography, Penn's website lists the degree with single (non-thin) spaces: "B.S. in Econ." Schistocyte (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for looking it up. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Note. Template:Thin space causes thin spaces to "not word wrap." Sorry I wasn't aware of that before answering. I don't think we have a problem because the words themselves won't wrap. Anyway. Just posting this here in case somebody ever wants to restore the template. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image (sorry, sorry, sorry)
Just a heads up it's likely to be deleted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't make this stuff up. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, no! You mean there ISN'T a public domain official image? For the past six months we've been shutting down all the "use this image instead of that one" arguments by saying "we have to use this one, it's the official image." Now we have to go back to the info-box image wars? Arrggghhh!!! (And thanks for the heads up, and no need to apologize - it's not your fault.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll get this started for you pre-RfC, perhaps prematurely if the result of the above-linked discussion is Keep. Of the photos on Commons by the current White House official photographer, only File:Donald and Melania Trump in the Oval Office 2017.jpg would be remotely suitable for the infobox. It would need cropping, and you can have his arms and unidentifiable parts of Melania, or neither. And he'd have leaves growing out of his head, clearly related to the smoke coming out of his ear in another photo (you can't crop that close to his hair and make a decent portrait). No American flag except the one on his lapel. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually there are more Craigheads that might work. I didn't realize there are multiple pages. I don't feel like going through them all at the moment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did my best to crop the picture. What do you think of File:Donald Trump in the Oval Office 2017 cropped.jpg ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazingly good crop. You know the White House has a Flickr account, not used as often as Obama did, but there might be more options than that one image, for example this one. I imagine somebody already uploaded that to the commons. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Woops, sorry, Mandruss already said this. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Trump administration should be punished for this farcical state of affairs by putting up the most unflattering public domain image of Trump we can find. It won't take long for the White House to release a decent official portrait to the public domain if we do that. I just can't even... -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't work. They already chose the most unflattering image possible. He apparently WANTS to be seen as scowling. Maybe if we use the smiling-happy-face crop suggested above, they will retaliate by coming out with another scowling official one, this time in the public domain. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be nice. So, can this one be considered consensual for now ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that we know this is not a public domain image, or otherwise permissible under WP:NFCC, it needs to be removed from the article immediately, which I will do presently.- MrX 17:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Others can decide what would be a suitable replacement. Perhaps a cropped version of the oval office photo.- MrX 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Replacement
It's aesthetically appropriate and also consistent for the portrait to feature the American flag in the background, as is the case with other Wikipedia articles of recent former presidents. As soon as someone is able to secure such a photo, it should definitely be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzhu07 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Would this picture be ideal for all things suggested so far? File:Donald_Trump.png Agith (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Pic A" seems like a good stopgap until we settle on a more permanent image, and it might do as the permanent one as well. It's not super-high-quality, but Trump supporters will appreciate a photo that makes him look reasonably good (and opponents can take heart in the image showing a horse's ass!).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have included the "Pic A" in the infobox for the time being, and written a note. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually prefer the crop created by User:Jean-Jacques Georges, listed here on the left as picture B. To me it is clearer, better focused, and has a somewhat better expression. And the background is less cluttered. But I will accept either. And I think we should leave "A" in the infobox for now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The nose (or the first nose, if you prefer) is way to the left on pic B, not centered. Plus pic B has about 20% fewer pixels, and the flag on his suit is sliced.  The poor lighting in pic B results in more shadow.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer pic B if not for its very low res. Overall, I like pic A as a replacement, but I'd suggest removing the empty space above Trump's head. κατάστασ η  18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also prefer B which I find better focused, but will not throw a fit should A be chosen. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The nose and eyes in pic A are pretty much centered vertically, if we leave the space above head. Leaving that space also allows users to figure out what the statuette is.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer pic A which seems to have a much higher image quality than pic B, it looks clearer and brighter to me. An added bonus is that the flag pin isn't cut off in the image as well. Jeanjung212 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pic A looks to this amateur like a high-quality informal portrait (although I understand that many professionals would disagree). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pic A is by far the best photo of Trump in the public domain, it's makes a shockingly good replacement of the original. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Both A and B look pretty awful with a creepy smile, poor lighting, poor focus. I'm starting to trawl through the myriad pictures of Trump since he came to office. Here's a first suggestion as Picture C: neutral expression, good focus, high resolution, clean crop. Will look for others asap. — JFG talk 20:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Added Pic D: 1. Better to show part of the thing above his head than to crop right down to his hair, which is extremely bad form in portraits. (Unless the photo was taken in front of a blank, completely uniform background, there will always be something appearing to come out of his head. For example, a cropped Pic C would have has multiple spokes coming out of his head. I merely cropped out enough to avoid it looking like a leaf and being unduly distracting.) 2. 0.8:1 aspect ratio, pretty much standard for portraits, at least in the U.S. Same as an 8x10 photo. 3. Doesn't chop off his lapel pin. 4. Pic A seems overexposed to me, along with other problems including overcropping. Pic C would face outward away from the text, which is an automatic disqualifier. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pic D is quite good. I like the crop that includes shoulders, that's more like most of our infobox pictures which are rarely just a headshot. And it's by the White House photographer and is clearly public domain. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pic D is fine IMHO, but we should try to crop the plants growing out of his head. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reiterating point 1 in my preceding comment. Emphasis on extremely bad form in portraits. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Should be changed to either C or D. This is a poor quality and poorly framed photo that honestly appears chosen to make him look ridiculous. Isenta (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hence the problem with rushing to any change (which is, by the way, expressly forbidden under the ArbCom remedies in effect at this article; see the prominent notice at the top of the page). There was absolutely no reason to change the image before the existing one was deleted (that was done even before Pics B, C, and D had been presented). I would support reverting to the pre-existing image or installing Pic D, in that order, but I'm not going to add to the disruption by doing that unilaterally. A few editors need to learn that WP:BOLD is to be interpreted differently under the remedies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found a higher-resolution pic from which I have re-cropped pic A. It seems to look fine above, but was temporarily distorted in the article itself.  It now looks fine in the article too.  I support keeping Pic A as a stop-gap at least until another image is selected via a survey or whatever.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose retaining a change that demonstrated a clear disregard for the remedies. And, if we feel the need for a stop-gap at this stage, D is a far better stop-gap than A in any case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Image D is very poorly lit, and poorly posed; he looks hulking and dark. And the resolution is much better in Image A, which has more than twice the pixels.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't matter. He looks like an idiot in any picture. I prefer images that aren't so closely cropped, but really there's no way to polish that turd. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If someone made the above comment on the Barack Obama page, Scjessey would be the first to remove it and to call for the person to be banned. Anythingyouwant wants to remove it but I'd like for it to remain to reflect Scjessey's bias and the crude manner in which he expresses his opinions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:William S. Saturn, the fact it remains speaks volumes about how admins who watch Trump-related pages primarily volunteer their time to ensure those pages are sufficiently derogatory. As you say, it would have been deleted long ago if it were directed against almost any other living person.  It should still be removed.  Better late than never.  On the other hand, I would much rather have been called an idiotic piece of shit than some of the false things admins have said about me at Wikipedia.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You both need to read my comment again and parse it properly. It says that Trump always looks like an idiot in pictures, which he does. For some reason, he just doesn't photograph well. Then it says I prefer images not so closely cropped, but the only example of such we have is awful, so I said "there's no way to polish that turd" - using a common phrase to describe trying to make something better out of something awful. There's no BLP vio there, unless you have some reading comprehension issues and just scanned the words "idiot" and "turd", I guess. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, I would never call you an idiotic piece of shit, User:Scjessey, and it would hardly be any different for me to say that your comments make you look like an idiotic piece of shit. So I won't say that either.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It says that Trump always looks like an idiot in pictures, which he does., a basic layman's understanding of human psychology tells us that that opinion arises almost entirely from your negative view of Trump (which I share by the way). I'll leave it to others to sort out the BLP question, but it's very bad form to present one's opinions as indisputable facts. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding picture C, I disagree that facing away from the text is "an automatic disqualifier": it's a criterion among others to help choose the best picture. To me, facial exxpression, focus and lighting are much more important. See also the infobox pictures of current world leaders Emmanuel Macron, Paolo Gentiloni and Donald Tusk. However Vladimir Putin agreed to face the text! — JFG talk 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again we show that image selection is largely subjective and (aside from things like outward-facing, which are covered in guidelines) arguments should be read as "in my opinion, per my personal aesthetic taste, visual perception, perspective, political leanings, and arbitrary weighting of factors". At this point, then, I would suggest reverting to the pre-existing photo. If a stop-gap proves necessary, we can install the photo that has the greatest support at that time (even if it lacks a majority). For the longer-term consensus we can and should run an RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't the pre-existing photo a copyvio? Anyway, I think Pic A has the most support as of now.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a question to be answered by the discussion at Commons, which remains open, despite some editors' need to presume the outcome prior to close. That discussion is linked in the OP. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have temporarily restored the official portrait and updated the wikitext comment, pointing people to this discussion. We should find an agreement on a replacement before the official one gets deleted. Sigh… — JFG talk 22:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , no, it is not a question to be answered on Commons. If an OTRS volunteer and admin asserts that an image is not in the public domain and has not been licensed under CC, it must be removed. To not not do so can be considered willfull copyright infringement and is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC. Restoring that image evinced very poor judgement.- MrX 00:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think we need to tap the brakes here and think about this; just because the photograper demands and a Wiki admin concurs, does not make it so. These people cannot just set aside or reinterpret copyright law on a dime. Look at the Copyright Policy at whitehouse.gov, and then view the image on Trump's official bio page. That  image is published to that website, and there is not an explicit exception posted alongside it. Ergo, the image is released under CC BY 3.0. TheValeyard (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Precious few of us are knowledgeable enough that we can make unilateral declarations out of process. That's why we have discussions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, the Whitehouse website says everything is free so it must be, because of course they would never just make things up. WMF legal can sort this out because it's pretty clear that the "community" is clueless about how to properly do so.- MrX 02:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the website gets to dictate the terms of its own use. Note that the photographer was so concerned about his copyright that he didn't even require a credit on the web page. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer specializing in copyright law. Are you? Your last sentence makes good sense, as this community of part-time, unpaid volunteers should not be expected to be able to sort this out. We still need to stay within our process until the process is overridden by WMF. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hold up there... As an OTRS agent who was consulted on the ticket relating to this image, and active on the deletion request (which was started out of process, should have been deleted on the spot after OTRS agent requested it, but were waiting for something on the ticket, so never did it), I must make it clear it is not CC-licensed, and that there is no clear evidence that the statement on whitehouse.gov is legally true. It is unfortunate that I can't reveal the info on the OTRS ticket, but you just have to take the OTRS agents words for it, and the trust that the Commons community knows what they are doing when it comes to copyright laws (and policies of their project). --<span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 00:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be missing my point, which was that we shouldn't be acting unilaterally out of process, which in this case was the Commons discussion. We also don't need to; the fact that the image link was removed here within the process - within mere minutes of the close - proves that clearly enough. The difference between out-of-process removal and in-process removal was a matter of a few hours, and I seriously doubt that, after the image being in the article for months, we significantly exposed Wikipedia to a lawsuit in those few hours. It's a simple matter of cool heads and common sense versus impulsive overreaction. If the process is generally inadequate to the task, the solution is to improve the process, not to act outside of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I added Picture E which is from this year, its a higher quality than the rest, its possibly his better pic because he is looking towards the camera (if not directly at it) and he isn't as red or orange as other pictures make him out to be and a simple 'white balance' fixed the picture..-- Stemoc 22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I very much like picture E. Just want to add I agree with TheValeyard about the old photo. We have licenses for a reason and this one is in plain English. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know how to change the little image in this template ? I can't figure it out. THanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not know or particularly care what this guy told an OTRS agent. The official photo of the President of the United States was published on a government website which explicitly states what material contained therein is and is not CC-licensed. Maybe the photographer did not want it to be released that way, but once it was done, it is irrevocable. This is a chilling assault on public domain law by this administration. TheValeyard (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually (not to reveall OTRS ticket info), only yhe copyvight owner (photographer in this case) can relase it under a license, regardless of trms a reuser may state on their website. There is more info in the OTRS email ticket than meets the eye, so no, it is not irrevocable (because the copyright owner did not release it). --<span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 21:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * : The White House plainly says that the image is licensed under a Creative Commons license. The photographer may have licensed it that way himself at one point, or he may have given the White House the right to sublicense the work. Even if the OTRS ticket disputes this, it can't prove such an agreement wasn't signed. At most, it's the photographer saying that the White House doesn't have a right to sublicense versus the White House's published claim that it does. I know the Trump administration is widely distrusted, but I still think we ought to believe its public version of events over an account given by a private individual in secret. Rebb  ing  02:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are likely multiple appropriate venues to raise such an objection, but I'm pretty sure this isn't one of them. WP:VPP might not be the best, but it would be closer to it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, the appropriate venue is c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, also linked in a separate subsection below. My suggestion is that continued debate on this page is both wrong venue (the matter affects far more articles than this one, on many wikis) and pointless (no decision will be made here). Recommend someone else collapse if this continues. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Picture C seems the best in my opinion. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Selection of stop-gap image
Please state your subjective preference. If and when the Commons discussion closes as Delete, the image with the greatest support here will be installed. This will be regardless of amount of participation or degree of consensus. The "winning" support will likely be less than 50% given the number of choices, but there will not be enough time to narrow the field to 2 and re-vote. This will be followed by an RfC to establish a more durable consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, you could allow opposition voting, but it would have to be based on the absolute values, i.e. 2 and -1 sum to 3, not 1. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * D is my subjective preference and does not go counter to any guidelines that I'm aware of. Those who care about my subjective arguments can read the preceding subsection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pings &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Emir of Wikipedia too.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. An honest oversight, I swear! :) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * C – Neutral expression, good lighting, good focus, background not too distracting. Bonus points for matching Melania's official portrait (until that one loses copyright soon as well?) — JFG talk 23:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A or F are my subjective preferences and do not go counter to any guidelines that I'm aware of. Those who care about my subjective arguments can read the preceding subsection.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E. In regards to color, framing and expression, I think it's the best and most fitting IB replacement (for now, at least). κατάστασ  η  23:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E. A subjective preference, but I believe that any with the except of the low resolution poorly lit F is acceptable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * D is my preference in this situation. Most of the other images I do not prefer for how they crop the American flag lapel pin, are dark, or just more pixellated. Jeanjung212 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E looks great. I like the background and that he hasn't turned on his photo smile. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E As it stands, the quality of others is really poor, I felt like we went back to 2015 when there were less than 5 choices of images, and all were poor, for now we only select from 2017 images even though there were much better options from 2016 but if we do that, we will end up with a "Picture Z" as well lol.-- Stemoc 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * D is my first choice. C is my second choice. Absolutely not F which is terrible because of the poor lighting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E is my first choice. C is my second choice. B, D, and F is a no. I suggest removing B entirely because that crops out part of the US flag and it is lower quality. --Excel23 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E or A since they are both good headshots of the President, E comes first due to A having the distracting statue. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Evenly-split votes, such as Anythingyouwant's, are easy; you just divide the vote into equal parts, in his case $1/2$ (or 0.5) for each of A and F. Unevenly-split votes are problematic when they don't indicate how to weight them. It may be unlikely, but it's at least possible that the outcome would hinge on the choice of weighting in a very close vote. It would be useful for unevenly-split votes to specify the weighting in fractions that sum to 1. (My 6-votes-per-voter system addresses this problem, but it seemed like overkill for this situation.) Votes of opposition to an image further complicate scoring to the point that I would be inclined to ignore them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When I do one of these I count "1.0" for a first-choice positive vote, "0.5" for second choices, and "-1.0" for opposes. Are you trying to run some kind of contest, or to find out how people really feel? In my opinion "oppose" votes (as opposed to didn't-vote-for votes) are very significant. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to do was run a fair and equitable process. If some editors cast one vote and others cast 1.5 votes or even more, that doesn't seem like equal voting power. If my feelings are divided between multiple images, they are inherently less strong for either of them than if I voted for only one. The only fair way to represent this arithmetically is to have everybody's votes add up to 1 (or any arbitrary value, such as 6 in the case of my 6-votes system).


 * Just a note, the Commons discussion is closed and the image will be deleted within the hour. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * C is my first choice. Good lighting and a neutral expression. F would be a weak second choice. I don't care for the lighting but E is far too bright and the others all have him grinning like some caricature of a lunatic asylum inmate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, I just made F a little brighter.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E does it for me. E stands out as a comparatively relaxed, non-stress-provoking image of Trump -- which is (in my opinion) just what this country needs right now... (Also, it doesn't look overly bright on my old PC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented before and was pinged but have no opinion now as all possibilities seem reasonable. At one point there was a badly cropped, low quality, stretched image that looked absurd and it was that I had issue with. Isenta (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E is the best quality. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New consensus and potential future changes
So,, do you concur that consensus 1 should be stricken at this point with a note and a link to this parent section? I lack the TE authority, and I would have been scared off by the giant yellow edit warning anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd wait a few days until the undeletion request at Commons reaches a conclusion. Community consensus to use the White House official portrait remains valid, however the community is faced with a copyright dispute on this image, and has adopted a temporary replacement. If the official portrait remains unavailable, we would probably have to conduct a site-wide discussion to choose a new default portrait: consensus can change, but any new consensus should be at least as strongly determined as the prior one. — JFG talk 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A week has gone by and the deletion stands at Commons. Meanwhile, new picture E has not been challenged. Will update consensus accordingly. — JFG talk 05:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, however this consensus was intended from the outset to be short-term. Still need an RfC, and I would prefer someone else started it. Your username comes to mind. :) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another discussion on the damn Trump portraits? Thanks but no thanks. — JFG talk 08:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Worst possible way to end discussion on this? Put up an image that received 50% of the vote and call it settled for the long term. You've been warned. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider it settled for the short term. WP:CCC will eventually happen. — JFG talk 19:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. So you accept that there will be yet another discussion on the damn Trump portraits, and in the short term, but like me you don't want to be the one to start it. Thanks for clarifying. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I support the consensus decision above. Ideally, Donald Trump will have a formal portrait commissioned (using paint) at some point, which will demonstrably be a public work and thus in the public domain.  I see no reason to discuss this until then. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironically, our own article about painted presidential portraits inform us that Gerald Ford and all presidents since Reagan "were painted by artists who were not employed by the federal government at the time. These images are not in the public domain, and as such, are not included in this gallery." Tough luck! For the same reason, we can't use The Visionary (fair use on its own page only), which would be particularly outdated anyway. — JFG talk 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is above my pay-grade. What a nightmare. I support the current image, and if there's another discussion, I'm going to support having no image at all in the infobox unless the White House explicitly provides a public-domain image on whitehouse.gov. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Should have used the official portrait of President Donald Trump. Marxistfounder (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The official portrait was removed from Wikipedia for copyright reasons, prompting this very thread to search for a replacement… — JFG talk 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion discussion
Please see undeletion discussion of the official portrait images on Commons: c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2017
Could you please add President Trump's parents to the sidebar on his page? Figfires (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Oversight corrected, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct claimed allegations
Since Melania Trump is mentioned in the paragraph about the groping tape, should her comments be included? (I think she dismissed them as normal locker-room talk).87.247.53.24 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is so much detail about this affair already, I believe a brief mention of Melania's position would be warranted. Any quote available? — JFG talk 05:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in this biography article. I presume her comments are already included in the article about the tape. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * COI, Melanie?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shucks, you caught me. (P.S. Note the disclaimer on my user page.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is who they used to be.🙂&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A BLP policy aide-mémoire
=== General BLP policy ===

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. (WP:BLP.)

Public-figure policy
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE.)

Analogous advice from the Reporters Committee
• Get independent corroboration. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for the source's own purposes.

• Just because someone else said it does not mean that an organization cannot be sued for republishing it. (The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed.)

The 'conduit' fallacy
A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement is clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so. A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you are simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense.

When the press reports that X has leveled an accusation against Y, it may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusation was made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusation. (AP Stylebook, 2015 ed.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dervorguilla, FYI, in the USA another law applies if the defamation is on the internet. The decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal (unfortunately) made it legal to republish libel on the internet. Only the original publisher of the libel can be punished. Republishers have free reign to totally damage other's reputations with completely false claims. Sad..... -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, where did you get this idea? What RS, or even article here, explains it? Free speech in the USA allows accurately attributed documentation of false statements. Only if the repeater of libel "makes it their own" (and not on the internet) do they incur liability. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, see Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 3. "Publication occurs when information is ... communicated in any medium, from a newspaper to a website.... The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article."
 * Further guidance is available in The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, 2017 ed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you check Barrett v. Rosenthal? It was a rather shocking decision which protects republishers of false statements on the internet. It dealt with Section 230, something mentioned in your source. This decision upset the applecart, so to speak. It removed a key protection, leaving many unprotected and without any means of defense against online libel. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, Dervoguilla, you need to read WP:LEGAL or you run the risk of getting indeffed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I've reread the policy. No violation.
 * A Wikipedia user is a member of the general public. As such, he doesn't think of himself as a publisher, a "republisher", a "conduit", "media", or a member of the "press". At least, not in this context. (And he's right!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I didn't think it was a violation either, but I have seen people indeffed for less.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. And that policy can indeed be used as a sword rather than a shield. Happily, it does acknowledge that a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat.
 * Also, I ought to clarify the intended purpose of this subsection:
 * This background material is meant to be analogically helpful in deciding whether an edit may violate WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy.
 * It's not meant to expand upon WP:LIBEL policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

General BLP policy
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. (WP:BLP.)

Public-figure policy
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We still don't need any of this crap. Please put it back in the hatted section. Wikipedia editors do not need generic lectures on policy on article talk pages. It is an inappropriate venue. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I question your suggested stereotype of "Wikipedia editors", which may be contrary to fact. I also question our authority and capability to speak for them. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scjessey. This is disruptive..- MrX 18:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this section shows the most relevant policy language, thereby 'focusing' on how to improve the article. Note also that a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that such a discussion is not a legal threat, but it's up to RS to raise the issue of whether a statement is libelous, not for us. Then it's our job to document what those RS say about the issue. Even if it's libelous, if it's documented in RS, it is not a violation of policy to mention the controversy, including the nature of the issue, wording of the libelous statement, and the facts correcting the libel (important!). As long as we don't go beyond what RS say, we're on safe ground.
 * BTW, I still don't know what actual or proposed content you're objecting to. You need to be specific. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. They are most certainly not for entire threads dedicated to generically lecturing editors about the finer points of policy. If you have a specific grievance, bring it up on a user's talk page or take it to WP:ANI, but what you are doing here is disruptive. If you object to the way an editor or editors are applying policy to something in the article, then bring it up in the thread discussing it. But do not create threads merely to give nebulous generic lectures. You've already made your point. Now it is time to wrap this up and do something actually productive, rather than disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's say you have reason to think that an RS (the Post) and the subject (Trump) could be hostile to each other. According to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, even a responsible, reputable organization could have a vendetta against someone and could unintentionally misrepresent some facts about that person. So, you can't rely on the Post to be accurate here. You need to confirm what it's saying. You need to find a second, independent RS.

"Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for his or her own purposes... Don’t rely on someone else to be accurate." ("vendetta. A prolonged [mutual enmity] marked by bitter hostility [between individuals or factions] <waging a literary vendetta> <conduct partisan vendettas>. Corroborate. Confirm <Everyone corroborated what he had said>.) Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 10; Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A contemporary illustration [partly completed]
You have to get the article right. (WP:BLP.) So, if a particular passage relates to a (living) public figure, you have to come up with a second source. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) If the alleged incident actually did occur, some other source would have alleged it too.

This is common sense... [To be continued (soon!), with an example from the article] --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't at all productive. Can you please write this essay in your own userspace and not on this talk page? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Illustration. "Trump is officially under investigation... Special counsel investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice..." Julie Vitkovskaya, "Trump Is Officially under Investigation. How Did We Get Here?", Washington Post, June 15, 2017. Had Trump been officially under investigation, some independent third-party RS would most likely have made that allegation too! They didn't, so JFG had to leave it out.

(And, as we now know, the alleged incident didn't actually occur.)

No second, independent RS had alleged the fact, so if JFG had chosen to go ahead and add a statement about it to the article, I could have just removed it for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion...

Double-sourcing or removing disputed facts
Some of the facts in the article are likely to get disputed. A few may be about persons non-notable or dead; those can stay. The others would need to get double-sourced or go. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)