Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 72

Ghostwriters in the sky
The lead now says, "With the help of ghostwriters, he published several books (most notably The Art of the Deal)...." But the name of Tony Schwartz appears on the cover of that book, was there someone else ghostwriting it?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. You're not a "ghostwriter" if you are credited. Maybe we should change it to co-authors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Article and RS state "ghostwriter".  SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most refer to Schwartz as a co-author, not a ghostwriter, so I have edited the lead accordingly. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Schwartz is variously described in RS as the co-author, author, or ghostwriter. Why "author"? Because we know who he is, unlike an unknown ghostwriter. In reality, "ghostwriter" is probably the most accurate term for all the other books attributed to Trump. He doesn't have a single "author gene" or ability in his body, and we know he likes to take credit for things done by other people, even "proclaiming" national holidays long since established by other Presidents. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anywant, you can"t just insert your POV when the article corpus and the cited source say otherwise. C'mon.  SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Darn! I can't? I was just about to include all that. Shucks. This article by Jane Mayer is one of the best about the book and about Trump. A very interesting read. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The body of this BLP says, "Trump has published numerous books. His first published book in 1987 was Trump: The Art of the Deal, written by ghostwriter Tony Schwartz". The footnote is "" Per dictionary.com a ghostwriter is “a person who writes one or numerous speeches, books, articles, etc., for another person who is named as or presumed to be the author.” Schwartz is named on the cover of the book, and he's described as co-author by CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, People, Huffpo, The Independent, BBC, and many more. The word "co-author" was removed from this lead during the past two days, and there is no consensus to remove it, so I intend to put it back per DS.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When secondary sources inaccurately represent primary sources, we should accept the primary source. In this case, it is apparent that the secondary source is incorrect about the ghostwriter, because the book clearly credits him as a co-author.  TFD (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the oppose of what we do. We don't do our own interpretation of primary sources - we rely on secondary sources to do that interpretation. According to our article on ghostwriter (very trustworthily doesn't have sources): In some cases, ghostwriters are allowed to share credit. For example, a common method is to put the client/author's name on a book cover as the main byline (by Author's Name) and then to put the ghostwriter's name underneath it (as told to Ghostwriter's Name). Sometimes this is done in lieu of pay or in order to decrease the amount of payment to the book ghostwriter for whom the credit has its own intrinsic value. Also, the ghostwriter can be cited as a coauthor of a book, or listed in the movie or film credits when having ghostwritten the script or screenplay for a film production.
 * But it does appear that sources are mixed on whether Schwartz was a ghostwriter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the ratio of mixing matters.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anywant, you just reinserted your POV without demonstrating consensus here on talk. Please undo yourself. RS tell us overwhelmingly that these books have been written by ghostwriters, and your insinuation about citing Wikipedia as a reference is an especially lame straw man. This article has the consensus requirement and the onus is on you for the edit you just made. Claiming the opposite in your edit summary doesn't cut it. Don't try to tell us that, contrary to the RS citation, POTUS sat down and authored half a dozen thick books. That's wildass OR, as I would have thought you'd know. Pinging  SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Haven't we been through this a million times? I don't need consensus to restore longstanding content, if there's no consensus to remove it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Longstanding content is treated differently under discretionary sanctions than new content; the sanctions are meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, not to let anyone delete whatever longstanding info they want to delete even if there is no consensus to delete it. As one admin put it: “If you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an ‘edit’ within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're bobbing and weaving. You bring in 3 random cherrypicked sources to support the ludicrous claim that POTUS is an author and then you contradict your POV in the article by saying that the ghostwriter is sometimes called a ghostwriter? It was almost better when you were flatly disregarding the excellent citation that was there before you scrambled to cover your denial of the reference.  Meanwhile, there is no consensus for this encyclopedia to claim that POTUS wrote or co-wrote six lengthy books.  SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant is correct as to process. The lead has said "co-authored" since 11 December, so a disputed removal requires consensus. Perhaps now we can focus on content and not on contributors. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have raised a content and sourcing issue. There's no good reason to rewrite text to go against what's in the cited RS (New Yorker/Mayer) and then hastily cobble together some other random cherrypicked stuff when somebody -- gee -- noticed that the article text is no longer verified WP:V by the cited source. They're ghostwritten books. That's what bigtime busy action-oriented executives like POTUS do. They hire ghostwriters -- the best -- and cut them in for a big incentive so they have a stake in the success of the book. Why is this being treated like some kind of disgrace that must be concealed at all cost???  Using a ghostwriter just shows that he had better things to do with his time than try to write a book! #Executive #valuabletime  SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Schwartz is named on the cover of the book, and he's described as co-author by CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, People, Huffpo, The Independent, BBC, and many more.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll generally take a position opposite an editor who points to one cited source as effectively end-of-discussion and dismisses three other cited sources as cherry-picking. That's what I'd call an anti-argument. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, let's stick to the facts here. The text was changed without any alternative source that contradicted the excellent recent New Yorker citation. OK. Only after I pointed out that the edit had departed from the cited source did the other 3 sources suddenly appear. And you still would need to address whether those other 3 are representative of the weight of the RS reporting on this (hint: they're not) or whether they were just super quickie cherrypicks to silence a discussion about an edit that denied the RS reference.  SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors may improve citations at any time, even during a discussion, and they should be able to do so without being accused of gaming. Your AGF needs a tune-up, especially with regard to your longtime nemesis Anythingyouwant. (hint: they're not) - Fine. Prove it. You're the editor fighting for a change to lomngstanding content, so the burden is on you. Exsqueeze me if I don't just take your word for it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your personal fantasies about other editors are not welcome. Anywant and I get along great. She just shouldn't be changing the text so that it contradicts the source. If you disagree, I suggest you bone up on the 5 pillars.  SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll come out of the closet a little bit, and say that I’m a he. (I hope that doesn’t spoil anyone’s fantasies.)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mandruss thought you had a Fatal Attraction thing going with one of the boys here. #shucks.       SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no clear RS preference for either word regarding Schwartz and Deal, so I have no problem with using the dictionary as a reliable source for vocabulary for the purposes of the lead, while giving a nod to "ghostwriter" in the Books section. I support current status quo. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It may not seem like it to any of the members in this heated discussion, but to me it looks like you are all working towards the same goal. Please try to stay away from commenting on your fellow editors, and please just try to advance these discussions further by using sourcing and logic based in our policies. We all want this article to be as accurate as it possibly can be, even if the topic can carry partisan emotions at times. Let's try not to get angry at each other just because we might be angry about any particular idea. I can assure you, I wouldn't be letting anyone edit here if I thought their intent was nefarious or to push their own POV. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * HuffPost, Independent Journal Review, Salon, The Independent, ABC News, PBS, and the others linked above. Five days earlier Mayer herself used both words in The New Yorker.

2000 presidential campaign
The previous section (and mentions in the lede) of his 2000 presidential campaign has been removed. This is highly unusual for an American political page. Off the top of my head,, compare Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who have sections and mentions for their unsuccessful presidential campaigns. Plumber (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2000 events are still mentioned in the article body, in the second paragraph of the "Political career up to 2015" section. This aborted campaign has not been deemed significant enough for inclusion in the lede. Also, Reagan and Nixon were seasoned politicians by the time they ran for President, and they did so in the primaries of a major party. — JFG talk 23:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of Trump's position is that he is a fresh start, an anti-politician, as opposed to the tired old hacks who have spent years in the Senate etc. But the fact is that he has had several goes at the job. I think that is indicative of the contradictions in his presidency. Not to mention that he recently claimed that he won on his first try, and removing the mention from the lede smacks of legitimising this false claim. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all he did was form an exploratory committee in 2000, dropped out when they didn't agree to hand him the nom on a platter, and eventually "won" two states in the Reform party primary post-dropout. It is really a footnote in his biography, rather than a notable milestone moment, so I think not being in the lede is a good idea. ValarianB (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you favour legitimising his claim that he won on his first go? --Pete (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we have a substantial article on Trump's 2000 campaign, I am surprised it is given very little attention in this BLP. It is briefly mentioned in "Political career up to 2015", but the relevant article doesn't even get a link where you would expect to find it (although it is linked to in the "popular culture" section and the template at the foot of the article). Trump's claim he won on his first go is obviously a lie, and it sure seems as if this article is doing a pretty good job of backing that falsehood up. I do not think it rises to the importance of being mentioned in the lede, but it is currently given short shrift in the body of the article. Trump's claims that he is "not a politician" have also been similarly backed up by the article, particularly with the tortured construction of the opening sentences of the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

New Racial views section doesn't have Trump's racial views
Am I the only one who notices that the new "Racial views" section doesn't actually explain Trump's racial views? Instead, it's a list of racist or perceived as racist statements and actions. How about rename it to something else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is called Donald Trump racial views, and that is presumably why it is called that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only way to know what his racial views are is by observation of his words and deeds. Reliable sources have been doing that for 45 years, and here we are. I guess we could consider adding that he once said "“I am the least racist person that you have ever met; I am the least racist person.", but I'm not sure that's worth the space.- MrX 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Emir of Wikipedia: If the article Donald Trump racial views doesn't cover Trump's racial views, then it's wrong, too.
 * How about renaming the section something like "Allegations of racism" or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The current heading is far more neutral. The section is not about allegations; it's about a documented history of racially-motivated actions and racially-provocative remarks that have been exhaustively analyzed, and condemned internationally by 50+ nations.- MrX 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @MrX: Do you think that the section explains Trump's racial views? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, nor does it attempt to explain his views. The section heading introduces the subject, but for brevity, it doesn't explain every angle. Technically, it should be History of racially-provocative remarks and actions perceived as racially-motivated, 1973 to present. That, of course, would be jarring, so instead we choose a short, somewhat vague heading that neutrally describes what is covered in the section.- MrX 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AQfK, can I just check that you understand the difference between "racial" and "racist"? --Pete (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because it has nothing to do with my point. Read my OP if you don't know what I mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your OP sparked my query. I'd just like to understand where you are coming from, in the interests of clarity. Are you able to answer my question? It's okay if you think both words mean the same thing, that gives an insight into your position, and we aren't talking at cross-purposes, which just leads to confusion. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the problem here really that the subject of the section is "racist views" not "racial views" but we are not confronting our uneasiness with such a definitive heading? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the problem is that we are conflating racial views and racist views. Trump's racism is borne out of his racialism, and both "isms" are receiving coverage in the sub article and the main BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are long strains of racialism in world cultures and, with respect to this article, Euro-American culture. Some of the racialist views in Western culture are now recognized as having been mistaken but not racist in the current sense. But racialist principles and speculations are still used to rationalize racist hate speech and public policy narratives. Trump, being a man of action and not particularly prone to inquiry or reflection, appears to speak from a long-discredited racialist POV while also espousing racist views and advocating racist policies. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually you just conflated racial with racialism. The former is a neutral term that simply means pertaining to race (his views on race) where the latter is belief system that for many is tantamount to racism (a racialist would support segregation, for example). GCG (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not following that one. Trump is a racialist. He projects characteristics on people based on racial categories. Much racist thinking is rationalized by false racialist pseudo-theories. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment was targeted at scjessey. Trump is a racialist in your opinion (and mine too, FWIW), but since he would deny it (assuming he understood what it was), LABEL applies. GCG (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL doesn't apply if there are plenty of reliable sources, and the guideline only says "avoid". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are not confronting our uneasiness with WP:LABELing someone a racist. To some extent, we are euphemizing the topic.- MrX 22:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that wP:LABEL applies, particularly as this is a biography of a living person. TFD (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quest, I don't understand what you want the article to do differently. It's already been explained that "Racial views", while imprecise, is preferred over a much longer and more complex title, something explaining that we can't know what is in his head so we are interpreting his words and actions. Are you complaining because we don't call him racist in Wikipedia's voice? We cite various sources calling him racist four times in this brief three-paragraph item. Isn't that enough for you? --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even David Duke is not called a racist in WP's voice, and he's a lot less debatable. I think it's a reasonable application of WP:LABEL that we allow RS to use a word that we won't use ourselves. GCG (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is not called a racist in WP's voice either, but nice try at a strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * VM, I don't know who you are accusing of strawman. I pointed out that we don't call him racist in WP's voice, and GCG agreed. I don't see any strawman argument there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to say the same thing in an edit conflict. MelanieN was probing for the root of Quest's concern and GCG replied with a logical point. Let's reserve the word "strawman" for actual logical fallacies. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The straw man allegation was a straw man. :-)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think we do or should call him a “racist” as per LABEL. I think we should also avoid the term racialism, except in quotes from RS. And yes, we are euphemizing the topic. But, that’s probably necessary until a larger majority of the population understands the inherent problems with racial judgements. OTOH, if we could name this anything we wanted, I’d prefer something like “xenophobic attitudes”. It goes beyond race. But that gets into a character formation diagnosis, which we can’t do. Just can’t think of a better title that doesn’t run afoul of LABEL. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind everyone that the latest statements attributed to Trump are coming from one source and is not corroborated by anyone else. In addition, Durbin has done this in the past, in 2013 he claimed negative statements against President Obama which was then denied by the White House and others present. We should not be using this statement as a major BLP issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a source.
 * Others in the same meeting initially confirmed the statement.
 * Trump has not explicitly denied it, though his language over time trends that way.
 * The timing suggests construction of partisan narratives.
 * Attempts to discredit sources are an all too familiar political tactic. And from this particular direction, one that is almost mandatory.
 * There seems to be no definitive way of proving what language was or wasn't used, and given the he-said-she-said "discussion" over the KJU quote, it might be a matter of who is yelling the loudest.
 * Regardless of the above, the wording is now part of the Trump legend, given the extremely wide exposure. --Pete (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this doesn’t appear to be true. WaPo said that their reporting was based on several sources and Durbin only later verified this. O3000 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And Lindsey Graham tacitly confirmed it. Trump's denial is not credible given his record (see § False and misleading statements). Tom Cotton and David Perdue's inability to "recall" is not at all convincing.- MrX 02:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to say seriously that I think many of the political articles at Wikipedia are shitholes, and there are also many countries where I would not want to live because they are too. That's why people want to leave them and come here. My two uses thus far in this comment of the word "shithole" are not at all racist.  So context needs to be considered.  And motives.  What Trump thinks about all this stuff I know not, and neither does anyone at this talk page as far as I can tell.  If we take all the most educated and skilled people from countries in dire need of them, it's not good for those countries; what does Trump think of that?  Nor is it good for us to become a safety valve for those countries to release their most unwanted inhabitants; what does Trump think of that? I and most others believe that people who desperately want to come here from shithole countries should get some extra sympathy and consideration; what does Trump think of that?  This BLP doesn't give the slightest clue.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't give the slightest clue because Trump hasn't given the slightest clue. I have a feeling I know what his answers would be to your three questions, but that would be OR. As for whether it was racist for him to apply that term to the countries he did, we leave that determination up to the Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that Trump was complaining about the people who come from shitholes, not the shitholes themselves, which is why people immediately called it a racist thing to say. Saying it in a bipartisan meeting on immigration in the Oval Office was pretty stupid too. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need the screen cap of a tweet in the Social media section?


A screen captured image of a Tweet doesn't seem to convey much encyclopedic information. Is it really worth the 786 characters it takes up in the article? - MrX 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump- 'Modern Day Presidential'.png --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is "worth" the characters it takes up. How would one calculate that? But it illustrates the president's colloquial approach to speech, which in my opinion is the defining characteristic of the man. This is seen in what is said as well as the means by which it is said—the Twitter account makes for presidential communications that are very frequent and often on very minor details of the duties of his office. Additionally, the sloganeering embodied in "make America great again" via a Twitter feed well-illustrates the crassness that many commentators observe in the current American presidency. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need it. And there may be better examples anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see how an image of words conveys anything of value to the reader. ValarianB (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "image of words" is more direct than our description of it could ever be. It is easier to present the "image of words" than it would be to find alternative words to describe the "image of words" that is depicted. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say a image wouldn't be as useful as, "Trump responded to criticism of his twitter usage with "..."" The image doesn't connect with the paragraph clearly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not 16. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It couldn't be more on-topic. It is an illustration of Trump addressing his use of social media. What have we chosen to title that section? You guessed it—Social media. The criticism is correct that this is just an image of words, but as an image of words it breaks up the otherwise sea of words, and its ability to communicate is not compromised by it being merely an image. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You simply describe it using, well, words. How hard is this to understand? Using actual words rather than a screenshot of a tweet. ValarianB (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

First name of Trump's attorney
This was one of the items being edit warred over. Let’s work it out. The article originally had it as Sheri Dillon. User:TheValeyard twice changed it to Sherri Dillon. User:Anthony22 twice changed it back it to Sheri Dillon, citing romper.com Romper.com does not appear to be a reliable source; more of a celebrity gossip blog. However, multiple other sources spell it Sheri so that is clearly what we should use. I will add a better reference and the issue should be settled. See, folks, this is how to resolve differences of opinion: bring it to the talk page. Don’t just keep reverting each other, particularly not at an article under DS, which can very quickly lead to sanctions. If you have other unresolved disagreements, you are expected to bring them here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch the double-R, was mainly focused on the needless verbiage. TheValeyard (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could we just remove the first name. The surname is not used elsewhere and they are not that public a figure. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Removing the first name would leave "His attorney Dillon said that...". We don't do that unless the full name has previously been given. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that was what I was suggesting, but now that I see it being used in a sentence it doesn't sound as good an idea as I thought. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's contrary to the first 7 words at MOS:SURNAME. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2018
Donald Trump is clearly shorter than Barrack Obama (check out photos of them together) and therefore less than 185cm tall and not 191cm tall. 203.217.150.67 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No reply needed, per WP:NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2018
I just want to know who the author of the Donald Trump article is. 2607:FCC8:F8C7:9B00:546C:65B8:D64:E42A (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no one "author". The article has been created by multiple people over the course of many years and is still in the process of being written. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A list of editors by edit count can be found here, but be aware that not all edits are created equal. For example I'm listed as #4 but a majority of my edits are matters of form rather than substance, and many editors below me on the list have made far more substantial contributions. This list can be generated for any article by clicking on "Revision history statistics" on the article's page history page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's interesting - and not always meaningful. The user listed as making the most text contribution to the article is an IP vandal - who gets credit for adding 200,000+ bytes simply because they once restored the entire article. But it is interesting to note that 21,910 registered accounts and an additional 2,643 anonymous accounts have contributed to the article, over a period of eight years. In other words, to answer the IP’s question, the article has 24,000+ authors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what Mark Twain said about statistics. Before our edit conflict, I was about to say that it says 5,482 editors have edited the article since its inception 14 years ago, so I guess we're looking at different numbers. Perhaps it would suffice to say shitload. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am wrong. 5,482 different editors. The pie chart I looked at was actually the number of edits by registered users (89%) and IPs (11%). That must have been in the old days before the article was protected. (Protection was occasional in the early days and became permanent in 2015.) And you are right about it being created 14 years ago (almost to the day). I guess I'd better not try to have anything to do with numbers today. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just place this here without a comment on who's #2 and #3 (oops, is that a comment?). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (Noting that it's the same statistics for this talk page.) If the non-comment is that MelanieN and I talk too much, I'm in good company. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL, Neil! Touché! --MelanieN, adding yet another edit to the count (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, I just found it amusing that the first two editors replying to this thread are the top two currently active editors for this talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, turns out I wrote about 5% of the article text and 10% of talk page discussions. Perhaps I should get a life? — JFG talk 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, what would you want a life for? I hear they're overrated. (And now we have #2, #3, and #4 of the currently active editors in this thread. What kept you?) MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 23 copy edit
#23:

Proposed:

I've amended current consensus 23 based on this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Even when my laptop screen is relatively clean, semicolons are difficult to distinguish from commas, at least in the font I use. Therefore the current content can be mistaken for: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries; citing security concerns, a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges. and the change would remove some unnecessary ambiguity. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support better also in that the "citing security concerns" should be next to "he" as it is relating to that not the ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's a little clearer.- MrX 🖋 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's definitely an improvement. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Reads better. — JFG talk 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Flows better. Doesn't feel so much like a run on sentence. Established  Calculus  05:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Less choppy and it flows better ParaNerd023 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

His initial
I propose Trump's article title be changed to "Donald J. Trump". The official White House website refers to the president as "Donald J. Trump" along with all of his official social media so shouldn't his article title be edited to reflect this? Many past presidents have their initial in their article title for example John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush etc. As those are the names they officially went by so the same should be the case for Trump's article. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Those people were primarily known by and referred to with the middle initial. That is not the case here, what he titles himself in an official capacity is not all that important. TheValeyard (talk)

Umm yes it is. The official title he gives himself in the White House IS important. Plus Donald has always referred to himself as Donald J. Trump on almost everything even before assuming the presidency. If he changed his name to say Ben after assuming the presidency he would be President Ben Trump and the article title would need to be changed to reflect that. He is officially referred to as "Donald J. Trump" by the Whitehouse. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If he changed his name to Ben, we would change it here after it became how the rest of the world referred to him, not at the time he changed it. That's how all BLP articles are titled. This is the subject of item 12, and I see no reason to revisit itespecially considering the OP's lack of knowledge of article titling policy. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Which would make Wikipedia lose all the little credibility it has left if they can't even refer to the President of the United States (pretty much the most famous man in the world) by his official White House recognized title. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If he's the most famous person man in the world, I think people will figure out who the article is about. But, we just go with reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at considerable length. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. We go by what he is commonly referred to, and it seems only himself and some of his supporters call him with his middle initial. Meanwhile, John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush are widely known in reliable sources and popular culture with their middle initial (So much so that the latter is even called "Dubya"). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And, if you want to look at it logically, it’s hardly surprising that the Bushes are referred to with middle initials as there were two of them; and as for JFK, Catholics sometimes use middle initials (or even first initials and middle names) as so many are named after apostles or saints and there are only so many. Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about this as we use common names. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with prior comments., you may want to review WP:OFFICIAL, which is an explanatory supplement to our WP:AT titling policy, saying that official names of a subject (person or thing) do not carry more weight than the name they are most commonly called. Among the examples given to illustrate the prevalence of "common names" over official names, we see "Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)" and "United Kingdom (not: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)", to which we could add "United States (not: United states of America)" or "Robert Mueller (not: Robert Swan Mueller III)". I hope this adequately answers your concerns about "the little credibility [Wikipedia] has left". — JFG talk 12:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So basically the president's name is decided by the media not the white house? Also George H W, was always referred to as simply George Bush but that changed after his son got elected. Why didn't they just leave it as George Bush then? There was a W to separate the 2 already. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The name he is referred to in common, everyday speech - not just "the media" - trumps (ha ha) the legal name on the top of his stationery. You question has been asked and answered, I don't see what else can be elucidated on the matter. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur with the others who have spoken on this question. We use the title that most closely matches the term that readers will use to search for the article; that readers are influenced by the form of the subject's name predominantly used in the media is obvious, but irrelevant.  "Donald J. Trump" as well as some other variants are already established as redirects to the current title.  Consensus is clearly established against the proposal. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is also supported by |Donald_J._Trump pageview analysis. For the 3 month period October-December 2017, Donald Trump received average monthly page views of more than 1.4 million views.  Only 3800 of those were as a result of accessing the redirect at Donald J. Trump. (Noting that many of the views are due to wikilinks to the article rather than to the redirect, but we would need a much higher count at the page with the initial to consider it a hot search term.) <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You may also find it interesting to see how this and other redirects are being used to access the article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a stupid argument. Type Donald J. Trump into Google and the Wiki page that will come up with be Donald Trump not the redirect therefore of course very few people will get to the page from the redirect. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * He's mostly referred to as Donald Trump or President Trump. As for Donald J. Trump? not so often. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as users reach this page as expected, it's all good. Most people using Google to look for Trump will type "Trump", not "Donald J. Trump", so that's not an issue anyway. He's universally known as Donald Trump, both in reality and in reliable sources, so that is what our article says. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Cancellation of Visit to UK
Is some written mention warranted for his cancellation of a visit to the United Kingdom in February? ChieftanTartarus (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so. It seems like routine scheduling information.- MrX 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * His potential visit to the UK has been one of the most discussed topics in the UK for nearly a year, and certainly the most controversial issue (especially considering the fact that the UK Parliament quite seriously debated banning him from entering the UK, that he is already banned from some local areas due to "islamophobic propaganda" and a "bigoted attitude towards women and ethnic minorities" and that he has earned the distinction of being barred from the UK parliament over "racism and sexism"). He also cancelled the visit "amid fears of mass protests". I think this should be mentioned in the article, especially given the widespread opinion (apparently shared by Trump) that the UK is the US' most important ally. --Tataral (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think in a sentence in foreign policy perhaps? As part of a description of UK-US relations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand the importance a little better. I agree, a sentence or two should be able to cover it.- MrX 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any mention of this would have to include the lies he told on Twitter about it, of course. He blamed the Obama administration for selling the old US embassy for "peanuts" (it was already owned by the Duke of Westminster and the US just LEASED it) and building an expensive new one, when in fact the decision was made during the Bush administration due to security concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This could be mentioned in several other articles, including the foreign policy one and the timeline one, as well as United Kingdom–United States relations - but not in this biography IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree. If it was a official state visit, I'd want to see it included here, but this was just to be at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new embassy. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what was heavily discussed in the UK was a different UK trip by Trump, which I believe is still on at this point. Yet another goofy Trump event. But, seems trivial to me. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We might mention (at those articles where we do it) that he claimed he was canceling because the new embassy he was supposed to open was "a bad deal made by the Obama administration." (The decision was actually made during the George W. Bush administration). "Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!" (Um, didn't he know about this long ago when he agreed to the visit?) --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly in the Presidency of Donald Trump article but not here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added it into the article which you suggested above, thank you for your opinions everyone. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 23 discrepancy
Somehow the article has been allowed to deviate from the text at #23. Consensus version:

Article version:

It's a minor difference, but to date we have not allowed even minor differences and it would be a very slippery slope to start doing so. What needs to be done to correct this? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been . In the future, do not worry about asking anything here first. You are always allowed per the page restrictions to immediately reverse any change to established consensus items in the article back to their consensus form. Such reversions do not apply against the WP:1RR restriction in effect (just be sure to reference the consensus item number in the edit summary when doing so). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 03:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I did it this way only because certain competent editors, including one who cares as much about the integrity of the list as anybody, were involved in the change. I suspected it was a case of them failing to update the list with the revised consensus. But this way works too, if that's the case it's not too late to update the list and change the article back, provided there is no serious disagreement about the strength of the new consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After a short discussion here, between all editors who would like to ensure their input is heard, it would be fine to update the consensus per standard protocol. It's just that the consensus items on the article are not to be changed without doing so first. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm saying that discussion may have already occurred and it's just a matter of locating it in the archive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69 for the relevant discussion (why the wording was different than the consensus 23 version). It looks like it was auto archived before a formal close, but at a glance it looks to me like there was consensus in that discussion to change #23 from "partially" to "revised". I haven't been following things closely enough to know if the new wording is more accurate now, but I believe that was the case when the discussion took place. ~Awilley (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I make it $5 1/2$2 (one weak agree) for the following, which is not quite the same as the above "article version". We can debate whether it's enough to change #23, but it is not what I would call a clear consensus. Generally I would expect to see a (not necessarily uninvolved) close for something that changes an existing consensus.

I support the revised version. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC) It's a nit, but the copy editing to move "citing security concerns" to the start of the sentence will regrettably require another consensus and revisionpreferably separate from this threadwhich shouldn't take too long. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the strength of that $6 1/2$2, I support updating the list and changing the article to the last version talkquoted above. I would like to ask User:JFG to do that, since he seems best at handling these complex consensus revisions. If it isn't done within about 48 hours, and there is no objection by then, I'll take my best shot at it.
 * No objections from me. ~Awilley (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the revised version. I see what you did here… — JFG talk 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - Thanks for spotting that the consensus statement had not been updated to reflect a later discussion amended it. The amended consensus language reflects that events shifted. "The new text concisely reflects the current situation, after the Supreme Court allowed full implementation of the third version of the travel ban, as defined in Presidential Proclamation 9645 (linked from the text as well)." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for handling this while I was offline. I took the liberty to link the first "travel ban" mention to the original Executive Order 13769 which caused so much furore. Then the "revised version" which went into effect links to Presidential Proclamation 9645, a section of Executive Order 13780 which describes the travel ban's current scope and provisions. — JFG talk 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The rationale for excluding wikilinks from the consensus, which you and I agreed upon back then, still applies, and I've revised #23 accordingly.. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, but I think we should put those links up for consensus by now. Situation is stable enough. — JFG talk 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So put 'em up! Carthorse. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly some day. Had enough of one survey for today. — JFG talk 18:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly questionable source
I notice that Wooten, Sara (2009). Donald Trump: From Real Estate to Reality TV by Enslow Publishers (ISBN 978-0-7660-2890-6) is presently cited 8 times in this article, and included in the bibliography. The book is classified as juvenile nonfiction (Google Books, WorldCat), and while the information might be true or uncontested, it may be prudent to double check the claims with other sources, per WP:CHILDRENLIT, for instance to ensure certain facts aren't overly simplified. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I wonder who would use a children's book to source an article about Trump. Oh, never mind.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Article structure
Anyone object to this?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I object to that specific change to the article structure, but I am open to changing it. For example I don't think that hiding something like Upon his inauguration as president, Trump delegated the management of his real estate business to his two adult sons, Eric and Don Jr. at the bottom of the page as is wise, but something like Trump does not drink alcohol; this decision arose in part from watching his older brother Fred Jr. suffer from alcoholism that contributed to his early death in 1981. could be. Also I don't think that saying a discussion of something that happened at the talkpage of someone like Dina Powell will be convincing to people here, whether that is rightly so or not is debatable but I think it is something to consider. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s not hiding anything, see the “conflicts of interest” subsection: At a press conference on January 10, 2017, Trump said that he and his daughter Ivanka would resign all roles with The Trump Organization, while his two adult sons Don Jr. and Eric would run the business with chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.[216] Trump retained his financial stake in the business.[217]. Also, the closer of the Powell RFC (linked in my edit summary) said, “There is a strong consensus to support the change. To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles.”  That’s correct.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the original structure. True, in many articles it is common to put "personal" at the bottom of the article, provided it's a brief item that just consists of the names of their spouse and kids, maybe a few other details like where they live. That’s the case with the article you linked, Dina Powell. But Trump's “personal” material is not a few trivial details; it is a large section with four subsections. It contains a lot of information important to the subject, and IMO should remain at the top of the article, not the bottom. What works for Dina Powell does not work for a complicated subject like Donald Trump. Or for other presidents either; see Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. IMO this attempted move was proposed in good faith, but I oppose it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the Bill Clinton BLP has any personal life section, much less a personal life section jammed above its chronological sections. Not that I think you cited Clinton in bad faith or anything.  In this BLP, the huge “wealth” subsection could be put at the end of the business section, but I still think the health and family sections ought to go in a personal life section after the chronological sections.  If the first part of this BLP is not chronological, then the chronological parts of this BLP will gradually be cluttered up with non-chronological stuff as is already starting to happen.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN. This is not a typical biography.- MrX 🖋 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s right, there is no separate “personal” section in the Clinton article; the information is incorporated into the article. (Of four the items you moved: the Bill Clinton article has his family background information under “Early life and career” - in other words, at the top of the article - and a sentence about his marriage and family under “Law school”. I didn’t find anything about his religion or health. His “wealth” is listed under “post presidency”.) In the Barack Obama article, his family and personal information are at the top of the article, under “Early life and career”. So are his religious views. At the George W. Bush article, “Family and personal life” is a subsection of “Early life and Career”, at the top of the article. In other words, all three of our most recent past presidents have that kind of information at the top of the article, under “Early life and career”. Need more examples showing that prominent politicians don’t have a “personal life” section down at the end of the article? See Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hillary Clinton … shall I go on? This is just not appropriate or practical for such people. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I left family background at the top of this BLP including ancestry and the family he was born into. It’s the later family stuff that’s now out of chronological order.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I reverted 's good-faith change in order to prompt discussion. The article structure has been stable for a long time, as questions toward placement of various subsections pertaining to Trump's personal life have been debated and settled. I am not opposed in principle to a change, but perhaps Anythingyouwant could submit a rationale motivating such change: what's wrong with the current structure, and how does their proposal improve the article overall? The only argument I can parse above, besides matters of personal taste, is a "slippery slope" supposition that the chronological parts of this BLP will gradually be cluttered up with non-chronological stuff. We can take care of that by trimming excess fluff in this section when it appears, and that is indeed what happened several times when some sections got bloated. Finally, the RfC close from another, much-shorter article about a minor personality, should have limited relevance here, if any. — JFG talk 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked to that RFC because the arguments are relevant here, and the closer was correct to say “There is a strong consensus to support the change. To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles.” The present BLP is becoming a disorganized hodgepodge.  Readers will not understand why they are reading what they are reading.  The first part of the BLP should be chronological like the vast majority of featured BLPs.  Sticking in other stuff out of chronology is bad writing, and it also causes article instability, subjectivity, and hassles because we have to decide case-by-case which stuff is important enough to be earlier in the BLP, and we’re also seeing a lot of redundancy issues because people want some stuff to go in both chronological order and subject order.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles. Considering that a majority is 50% + 1, that doesn't seem very relevant. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s a vast majority for featured BLPs. When’s the last time you picked up a biographical book that wasn’t chronological?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't what that closer said. If you're withdrawing that part of your argument, say so. Better yet, strike it for clarity. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A bare majority of BLPs, and a vast majority of featured BLPs, are completely chronological or chronological until late in the article. That’s what I’ve said consistently here today, and there’s nothing contradictory in that RFC I pointed to.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to keeping biographies in chronological order (see my suggestion below for a different improvement proposal in this regard), however the first section addresses themes that are orthogonal to Trump's life story; placing them in strictly chronological order would blur their significance. For example the development of his wealth can't readily be assigned to a particular moment in his real estate efforts or his media career. Likewise, his family story is interweaved with his business, media and political activities. On the other hand, the "ancestry" and "religion" sections are a bit TMI at the top of the article. But if we send the whole "Personal life" section to the bottom, readers would dive directly into Trump's early business without a clue about the context that shaped his character. — JFG talk 09:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There are really only three ways to structure a biography: I prefer the latter, where the article is divided into topics that are ordered according to prominence/notability, and then the content of each topic is ordered chronologically. What we seem to have right now is a messy hybrid of all three philosophies, and this is leading to arguments about where things should go. Of course, any restructuring of an article this big is going to be an immense task. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Strictly topical (good for short articles)
 * 2) Strictly chronological (good for short or medium length articles)
 * 3) Topic/chronology hybrid

Moving the "Public profile" section
Looking at the overall structure, the main break in chronology is the "Public profile" section, which is currently tacked between Trump's media career and his political history. I would suggest placing this section at the end of the article, between "Presidency" and "See also". What do y'all think? — JFG talk 07:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is generally where those sort of sections go - I'd support.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sections like that typically go lower, and a lot of the stuff in that section is already appropriately mentioned in various other sections, so moving it wouldn't be like hiding it all at the bottom.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I currently have no objection to this, although that may change if we end up altering the article structure significantly in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose and why is this being discussed yet again, and why the multiple attempts by to bury this information at the bottom of the article? The discussion a mere four days ago indicated consensus for the current position, headings, and structure Besides, if we followed a strictly chronological arrangement, his public profile would stay near the top anyway because his public profile began in 1973 when he was sued by the DOJ for housing discrimination., I'm not sure why you have changed your mind on this.- MrX 🖋 14:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While it is true I supported the title and location in that earlier discussion, it was the title I was most concerned with. I am happy with either location, and I do not consider the new location as an attempt to "bury" anything. And as I said above, I may withdraw my approval if we do any additional structural alterations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification.- MrX 🖋 15:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really buries the information Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the "Public profile" section is new (it was created this month), so neither its content nor its placement get the treatment under DS that longstanding content gets.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion you are referencing resulted in placing the new "Racial views" content in a "Public profile" section that also includes other aspects of how Trump is viewed by the public; it was not conclusive as to where this new section should be placed within the overall biography, and I think it ended up in the middle of Trump's careers by chance. Placing it after the "Presidency" section is not an "attempt to bury this information", it's just an attempt to provide our readers with a well-structured biography. Actually, from a UX standpoint, a bottom section will get more attention than a middle section, especially when reading the table of contents.
 * Stunningly enough, we don't have yet an article called "Public image of Donald Trump": there was an attempt at creating that a few months ago but it was deleted IIRC for lack of quality content (basically it just said Trump was a douche). If/when we write such an article, then the "Public profile" section here should be a natural WP:SUMMARY of it. — JFG talk 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Several editors in the previous discussion commented that the "current edit looks good" or similar. We were, after all talking about, "Where to put the "racial views" coverage". At the very least, ping all of the editors who previously commented to see if they want this material at the bottom of the article.- MrX 🖋 03:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, you already pinged everyone previously. The previous discussion was titled "Where to put the 'racial views' coverage".  Here's what people said about it who have not commented in the present talk page section....User:MelanieN said "Putting the 'Image' section at the end - after the 'president' section - makes sense to me. It's a kind of summary-of-his-entire-life section, it has no chronology." User:Signedzzz said, "I think the image section should stay where it is now, just before the politics section."  User:Emir of Wikipedia said, "Either a subsection of 'Family and personal life' or put it after the political sections".  User:SPECIFICO said, "I think the Public Profile section would logically go between Family and Religion".  No one else commented about it; several other editors agreed with changing the header to "Public profile" from "image" which was a different issue from placement of the section. So, there are three editors currently objecting to moving the section down: SPECIFICO, MrX, and Signedzzz as best I can tell.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, I may have said that in connection with a section that was JUST about his public image (a sort of popular-culture section as in many articles). I can't find it, but maybe I did. It's not clear to me what kind of "public profile" section you are talking about here. But I have been very clear, in the earlier thread (the one called "Article structure"), that I OPPOSE putting all kinds of other information, particularly the large "personal," "family," "health," and "wealth" subsections, into a section at the bottom of the article, regardless of what that section is called. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The section being proposed to moved is Donald_Trump Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Now I see it. You are talking about the section that includes "political image", "racial views", "popular culture", and "social media". There really isn't a good place for that section, since it has no chronology. I don't share the obsession of some others here about "chronology" and in general I think a subject-based order, rather than a chronology-based order, is preferable. I think it is OK where it is but I wouldn't object to putting it at the bottom. --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and challenged the recent insertion of this "profile" info by reverting it. Then, in a separate edit, I inserted it lower in the BLP per proposal above.  Anyone should feel free to revert the latter edit, but I think per DS consensus would be needed to revert the former edit.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I hadn’t really evaluated this question or reviewed the previous discussion until User:Anythingyouwant’s cute trick to impose his own preference even while discussion is ongoing. (The cute trick was: first delete the entire section as “a challenge to recently added material,” then immediately re-add it in a different place. Ummm, if you were willing to immediately restore the material to the article, then you weren’t really challenging it, were you?) So I have now evaluated the previous discussions and found 1) the “image” section was created, by agreement and without objection, after discussion at the talk page, so it is not eligible to be “challenged by removal”, and 2) there was a pretty clear consensus to put it where it was and not at the end of the article.


 * In an extensive discussion above, “Racial views” (Jan. 12-13), it was agreed to include a “racial views” section in this article, and such a section was created by User:Gandydancer on Jan. 13. There was no objection, and multiple other people edited and improved the section, so it was clearly accepted by consensus. In another discussion, “Where to put the “racial views” coverage” (Jan.13-14), User:Galobtter suggested putting that material into an “image” section. There was discussion, “image” was agreed to, and the section was created. Again, nobody objected to its creation, and other editors edited and improved the section. So this image section was was created according to prior consensus on the talk page. It is immune from “challenging as recently created material,” since consensus to include it had already been obtained. In fact, consensus would be needed to remove it.


 * In the “Where to put the “racial views” coverage” discussion, Anything objected to the location of that new section in the article on chronology grounds; Anything argued to put it at the bottom of the article. User:MrX pinged recent editors to weigh in on the question of “where to place the image section”. MrX and User:Signedzzz wanted it kept where it was; User:Emir of Wikipedia and I were OK with moving it to the end. Then User:SPECIFICO retitled it and suggested putting it between Family and Religion, and the following people agreed: User:Scjessey, MrX, User:My very best wishes, Gandydancer, User:Bullrangifer, and User:Steve Quinn. (All of them agreed with the new title, Scjessey also endorsed the proposed placement, and none disagreed with the proposed placement.) This was arguably consensus for its current location; at bare minimum, there were more people who wanted it where it was than wanted it moved to the bottom of the page, even if you don’t count the people who agreed with SPECIFICO’s proposal without specifically (no pun intended) mentioning the location.

Bottom line, there was consensus to create the "public image" section, and there was arguably consensus for its then-current location in the article. And that’s aside from the contradictory action of pretending to “challenge” a section and then immediately restoring it. So I will revert the removal and restore the section to its original place until some other consensus is developed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. In the recent discussion, JFG, Galobtter, and Anything supported the move to the bottom of the page; MrX objected; Scjessey and I said we didn’t object or didn't care. Most people have not weighed in yet. So it is possible a new consensus might develop, but it hasn’t yet. Until it does, I don’t think a move under false pretenses (which is how I regard Anything’s action) should be allowed to stand. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that the section has already been moved back to its previous location by User:Signedzzz. Thank you, zzz, you beat me to it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with everything above, and further suggest should at least be trouted for transparently (albeit creatively) violating discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we have an RfC to see which of the two options so far expressed has the most support? Or we could look for a compromise between the two options.- MrX 🖋 17:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, RfC's have to be the way of life here, among other reasons becuase folks just don't notice otherwise and then the proposals get modified one way or another and there's never closure. You could just take a straw poll before launching a long cumbersome process of RfC. Maybe there's easy consensus. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered sending him a WP:MINNOW (a small one because I think he acted on what he thought was a good-faith, or at least a clever-but-not-illegal, interpretation of the rules) but I decided to let it go. I agree that RfCs have become all too common here and it would be good if we could settle this without a formal RfC. And I think it's too bad that we keep raising the same issues over and over, so that either earlier opinions get overridden or else people have to keep coming back and weighing in again and again. As for a compromise, that would be nice but it's hard to see how one can compromise on a question of "either put it here or there". --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's too bad that we keep raising the same issues over and over, so that either earlier opinions get overridden or else people have to keep coming back and weighing in again and again. The solution: 1. Make the consensus clear, so future editors are not required to spend an hour reading and analyzing a discussion to see it. The only ways I know of to do that are straw polls and RfCs, unless it's a really simple question that didn't require a lot of discussion. A close helps, and it can be an involved close if appropriate under the applicable close guidelines. 2. Add the consensus to the list. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be good it we could settle it without an RfC, but when you initially raised this at '' the discussion was progressing, then an editor jumped right in the middle with a commercial break to announce another discussion, then another editor changed the wording of a section heading, at which point it was not clear whether people were agreeing to the position of the sections or the wording of the section heading. On top of that, Anythingyouwant started a new discussion and then implemented the edit he wanted in the first place.- MrX 🖋 18:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite supporting it - it is a pretty ridiculous "cute trick"..I think a survey (without an RfC) could settle this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with doing a survey, with two options, no more; no write ins; no infomercials, etc..- MrX 🖋 18:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)\

Survey: location of the "Public profile" section
Where should the "Donald Trump" section be located? Arguments on the merits of such placement can be found in the above subsections. Further discussion may be conducted below. — JFG talk 18:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A. at current location, between "Media career" and "Political career up to 2015"
 * B. after the chronological sections, between "Presidency" and "See also"


 * B — JFG talk 18:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A — Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A — <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A — MrX 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A - zzz (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * B Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lean A, but honestly I don't think it really matters where. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A -- Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * B Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A ParaNerd023 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion
If the purpose is only to take the local temperature, disregard this comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on process - If the purpose of this is to show a consensus, it needs the concise arguments that distinguish !votes from votes. If this is what Wikipedia means by the term "straw poll", it isn't what I meant when I said this yesterday. The first 5 voters commented in the above two sections, so one might assume that their arguments can be found there (as JFG's comment suggested above). I would have to take it on faith that and  read the discussion and are !voting "per" one or more editors there.
 * FWIW, I just intended this survey as a "local temperature" measurement, so the discussion wouldn't run in circles. — JFG talk 23:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

" He became the fifth person to be elected president while receiving fewer popular votes than his opponent."
This is a direct quote from the lede in our article on George W Bush, merely changing the ordinal. Why do we not have something similar here? It is a rare and notable occurrence; it occasioned much comment at the time and continues to do so. --Pete (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Already covered. Please take a look at Trump's current lead section: He became the oldest and wealthiest […] and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote. — JFG talk 18:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been extensively and exhaustively discussed. A consensus formed around the wording currently in the fourth paragraph of the lede: "He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good! But shame on me for missing this. Any chance we can boldface it? --Pete (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Link Unite the Right rally
Mention of "Charlottesville, VA rally" in racial views section should link to Unite the Right rally. GCG (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 20:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 23 substantive change
Comment I continue to think there's a problem with this language. The ban that was implemented is not a revision of the same ban. The initial ban was a "Muslim Ban" per the campaign promises and policy pronouncements. That was struck down by the courts. The current travel restriction was able to be implemented because it is fundamentally different. It is no longer a Muslim Ban due to the addition of non-Muslim identified nations. So it's not a revised version any more than a cake is a revised version of a cookie or a strikeout is a revised version of a home run. The article text minimizes this fact, which was the crux of the court decisions and RS discussion of them. So I propose Alternative B:

please consider. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm 50-50 on that, but I'm essentially treating this as a clerical minor reword, not saying that the current version is the best. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, I just figured as long as we're reconvening we may as well do a more permanent improvement from the current POV language that states the original policy was implemented with a tweak. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer to keep separate issues separate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm slowly recollecting what I was thinking of last time..I think it was for a more permanent solution of "He ordered a controversial travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries." per someone's suggestion. The initial travel ban was the most covered, while coverage has dropped off for the later stuff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm eh on that too.. I don't think it is correct to say "ultimately" as the supreme court will rule in June - legal challenges are still going on. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me that the travel ban portion needs updating with that.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , but it would need to be in the article body before I would consider it for the lead.- MrX 🖋 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which portion is not there? The body describes each variant of restriction in detail, and the legal challenges. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to keep the current wording. The new restriction isn't really "different", it just had a couple of non-Muslim countries added to get around the claim that it involves religious discrimination. (The additional countries seem to have been added almost randomly; to this day nobody can explain why Chad, an important ally of ours in the fight against terrorism, was added.) At best the new one was "modified". And Galobtter is correct that the latest version wasn't "ultimately" implemented; it was temporarily implemented. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But it was not a "claim". It was the mandate of the Federal Judiciary of the US. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you propose to add "temporarily"? That might be good . <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think temporarily is right, just have "implemented" - it could be temporary, it could be permanent.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, I struck might be good. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think RS generally say more along the lines of "modified restriction" not "different restriction" Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The editors who've worked long and hard on this seem to say the Muslim Ban was revoked and that it was "replaced" with the new ban. Executive_Order_13780 and the old ban here -- <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, "revoked and replaced" is also correct, just how to represent the difference. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This proposed change would be needlessly confusing to readers, by presenting the various travel bans as fundamentally distinct from one another, whereas they really are a continuum. The furore erupted over the first version because the only countries that were targeted happened to be Muslim-majority, and Trump had made quite insensitive comments about "Muslims pouring into the United States" during his campaign. However, the White House always maintained that the motivation for the travel ban arose from security concerns (as represented in our current consensus wording), and the revised versions of the legislation have only clarified the target countries and the boundaries of the restrictions. That a Muslim country was removed from the initial targets and two non-Muslim countries were added, is no proof that the original ban was specifically directed at Muslim people; had this been the case, then many more countries should have been targeted, and they weren't. — JFG talk 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the court rulings and RS discussion of them and see whether you want to reconsider that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have indeed read a lot about this topic, and that informed my statement above. Regarding any substantive changes to the lede summary of this affair, I would advocate waiting until the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the remaining challenges. — JFG talk 01:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Stormy Daniels
Please weigh in at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, about inclusion of content about the Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels hush money allegation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Full transcript of Stephanie Clifford's interview with In Touch was published today. Mapocathy (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Shouldn't it be discussed on this page since it was alleged to be consensual, and the misconduct mentioned in that page is all non-consensual?Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a clear 72 consensus to omit from the other article. Barring RfC, that discussion appears to be concluded. I'll oppose in this article per WP:DUE and I suspect its chances here are close to zero. My guess is that it will fail DUE in any article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. NOTNEWS unclear. little fact. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard, through the grapevine, that there is a drink called the Stormy Daniels, possibly a variation of the old Dark 'n' Stormy. Do any of you know? Drmies (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. (no exception for arbs) &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  02:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad I didn't say I just keep thinking it means Stormy Weather. O3000 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an arb anymore, Mandruss--just an interested observer. :) Drmies (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK User:Mandruss HOW DO YOU SPELL "RELIABLE SOURCES" IN RUSSIAN! Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * надежные источники. Why do you ask? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump and golf
A new page Donald Trump and golf has been created. Is this necessary as a stand-alone page, or should it be redirected to Business career of Donald Trump? I'm not sure the part about how much Trump has golfed as president should be combined with information about his ownership of golf courses. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * who created the page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My reasoning behind the article is that his relationships with his golf courses are notable for several reasons. Namely, the emoluments clause accusations (which have led to multiple lawsuits) and the possible conflicts of interest (which have been independently reported by several reliable sources). His ownership of the courses is just necessary background info.
 * "how much Trump has golfed as president" might not be encyclopedic on its own, but is relevant considering he's doing it at his own courses and potentially profiting from it, which would be a conflict of interest. And that's not my original research, it's just summarizing what has been reported. Surachit (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Surachit might be correct about the notability of the subject. We can still discuss what parts need to be merged if we are ready for a merge. Lorstaking (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - what you're describing belongs at Presidency of Donald Trump, because Emoluments clause or criticisms 'how much as President' only exist as part of him being President. I don't think any of the above fits here at his biography page.  The section Business_career_of_Donald_Trump could use the list of courses.  Don't get too excited about the number of times though -- snopes generally reviewed this and pooh-poohed it and Obama's 333 times when compared to Eisenhower or Wilson.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hagiographic second paragraph
A portion of the second lead paragraph needs some tweaking. It currently reads:

I propose changing it to something a bit more encyclopedic sounding like this:

Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better; another slow-moving edit war (especially over third-generation businessman, which removed but then was readded..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs some tweaks - "Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump's career started in 1971 running the family's real estate company" - Trump's career wasn't following his grandmother... suggestion
 * "Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump started running in 1971 the family's real estate company" Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (Never seen Trump run.) How about "Following his grandmother Elizabeth and father Fred, Trump began running [or took over] the family's real estate company in 1971, later renamed The Trump Organization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 18:58, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think took over is accurate as his father was still chairman or something; began running seems best. Again phrase problem; despite his numerous powers, Trump still hasn't renamed the year "1971" to "The Trump Organization". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also prefer having in 1971 in the end, but "later renamed The Trump Organization" right after that is slightly problematic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it is important or necessary to indicate the business has been passed down through generations. I would simplify it thus:

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with some of these are that we are trying to put too much information in one sentence which tends to make it unclear. One could read the above to mean that renaming the business involved building skyscrapers... I do agree that mentioning his pa and grandma are not particularly important.- MrX 🖋 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, here is another possible version:

This includes all of the information except that the business was renamed, which is trivial anyway.- MrX 🖋 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ossia:

<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my favorite so far. It's clear and succinct. Not fake. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's okay, but I still think it can be shortened:
 * -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this; unsure on whether succeeding should be included or not. Think can replace it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Scjessey's wording. I think further rewording is needed in the lead to remove repetitiveness. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That works for me. - MrX 🖋 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I like Specifico's version better than Scjessey's. Too many words missing from the latter. ("He also started", "took over running") I also think naming the previous owners are a good way of saying it's a multi-generational company without actually having to say that explicitly. ~Awilley (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scjessey's wording has "running"; I actually added "also", but then removed because there were three also's in one paragraph; doesn't family say that it is multi-generational? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is that "family" already signifies multi-generational, but ultimately it doesn't matter because this article is about Trump, not the Trump Organization (which has its own article that explores the ownership lineage). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 's version is short, well-written, and to the point. — JFG talk 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 's version is short, well-written, and to the point. — JFG talk 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Spacing between paragraphs lead
I know this is a minor point - but I really dislike how the foreign policy and domestic policy paragraphs are split, and how the second and third paragraphs are split in the lead..it just stretches the lead out - makes it have way too many short paragraphs. (would change but this actually is a slow-moving edit war really - was combined for sometime, then split, then combined..see if can get a consensus one way or the other) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the domestic and foreign policy paragraphs in the lead should be combined (and rewritten). Starting a lead paragraph "In domestic policy,..." is awkward. The second and third paragraphs could be combined, but are less of a concern to me. See the section I'm about to start below.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Article organization suggestion
The article currently has Main article: Political positions of Donald Trump under Political image though that section has nothing to do with his political positions. I believe it should be moved to the Domestic policy section. Gandydancer (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That seemed out of place to me when it was added about a week ago, but I couldn't revert it per 1RR. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be moved, just removed (done). It already appears under "political positions" in the campaign section, and that's fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 1A post-wrapup discussion
Two things, should the one that purposed the change really be closing? Also unless I am reading wrong, it is 7-4 not 7-3. PackMecEng (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. Doing so is more than "involved".  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ANYBODY can do a close of a discussion like this, involved or otherwise, if there is a consensus - which there was. This is not an RfC, remember. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that's true for RfCs as well. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that winkelvi opposed just 2 minutes before I did the change.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

shifting down here for visibility Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Also, ughhhhh

PackMecEng, the consensus was for a proposal made by MelanieN, not me; I merely started the parent thread and made a proposal (1) that failed. (Even if Melanie's proposal had been made by me, I believe my involved close would've been within policy.) If anyone feels my close was improper after discussion and agreement among some 4 experienced editors, the recourse is described at Closing discussions. If it's challenged, don't forget to notify us here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like I misread the start and got your post mixed up with MelanieN's my mistake on that one. But still not the ideal situation, yes anyone can close but generally not a good idea. Also consensus is not a head count, which seems to be the only criteria used in the close. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I don't really see how the arguments can be weighed really in this case and the per nominess of it means that the opposition is disadvantaged, I think. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless policy clearly supports one side or the other, or one side is clearly outside policy, it comes down to head count, yes. That's how it works regardless of who closes, because there is no other way it could work. That's why I've never seen a close, involved or not, go against the numbers in 4.5 years. If we reopened and requested an uninvolved close at ANRFC, I guarantee it would close the same way. As I said, the challenge door is thataway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The easy target to hit with policy would be WP:BLPGOSSIP. But past discussions would be helpful as well, specifically the Hillary Clinton health discussions here, here, and here. To say there is no policy based ideas on why speculation on a BLPs health is just wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To say there is no policy based ideas on why speculation on a BLPs health is just wrong. Ok, maybe that's why I didn't say that. What I said is that policy did not clearly support one side over the other. For my part, I cited NPOV and bolded the specific part of it that I feel applies. Nobody can reasonably claim that wasn't legitimate, that I was just applying my own view of neutrality and slapping the acronym on it. And the other side was also not without merit. In such a situation, which is the situation in a large majority of content discussions, it's head count. And I counted heads. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I have said my peace. If health related gossip about BLP is equal or less than NPOV in your mind there is not much more to discuss. Perhaps it would be best if you refrained from closing discussions in the future. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If health related gossip about BLP That's the thing, there was no consensus that it was merely health related gossip. Ergo, you can't use it as a factual premise for your reasoning. As for your kind suggestion, I will abide by a majority opinion on that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * People that have not examined him and make guesses on his health, is health related gossip. There is no wiggle room there. PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok we're done. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, this is not "gossip". Gossip comes from anonymous or unreliable people and is published in tabloids. This is commentary by respected, named individuals and is reported in Reliable Sources. One or two such comments would not get reported here. Since there was quite a weight of such commentary, it has deserved a brief, summary mention. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) This thread would benefit from an uninvolved close in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If they have not examined him in person, which is the bar we have set for other medical issues here and other articles, their thoughts on his health are not relevant and at best guesses. It goes all the way back to Clinton, we had many reliable sources and respected doctors reporting on her supposed health issues but since they had not examined her, it was deemed gossip and guesses. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Were their comments based on their analysis of quantitative test results certified by her personal physician to accurately reflect readings from her bodily fliuds and other established modes of medical data collection? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact yes her results were published and commented on. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as I believe I have said before here - and apparently the same thing applied to Clinton per your link - there is really nothing significant about their doctors saying they're OK. That's what happened in both cases. Now I think when you're POTUS you do get these annual checkups and the results are always carried in the press for a few days, even when there's nothing to report. But the press event that Dana Milbank described as a kind of circus similar to other over-the-top praise of Trump for whatever he did the day before - that is really of no long-term encyclopedic weight. And indeed it's already faded into nothing and should not be in his bio article, just as Clinton's is not in hers. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You made that argument in the proposal. Others read your argument and either agreed or disagreed. The discussion was closed legitimately, nobody disagrees with that statement besides you, and you don't disagree with it enough to challenge the close via the established and relatively easy process. Your !vote was counted. We're sorry, but you lost. We should not be continuing debate of the content issue here, starting literally minutes after it was settled. WP:Process is important.
 * Thanks for the tip, I intended to stop commening but it would be rude not to reply to pings and questions. Give it a rest already. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Still working on my mind-reading skills, with little progress. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling, I still feel silly for mixing you two up on 1A. But as this seems fairly settled with all of us at this point, unless someone outside comments I think we are good. Take care { PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"See also" header on Health section
I think we should remove the header to the health section "See also: Physician to the President and White House Medical Unit". It is superfluous. We can wikilink "physician to the president" within the section, and the White House Medical Unit link adds nothing. I was tempted to just go ahead and do it, but since the tag is not recent I thought I would get other people's opinions first. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. I almost did this myself a few days ago. — JFG talk 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ diffGalobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading last sentence in lead
There's something wrong with this: "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to continue the investigation into links between Russia and Trump campaign associates and any related matters."

It implies that only "Trump campaign associates", and not Trump, are under investigation, but the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) involves all members of his campaign, including Trump. That needs fixing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems consistent enough with the first para of the linked article. If that is inaccurate, it should be addressed there first. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it does finally mention Trump in the last sentence, so it's less clear than I thought. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a suggested alternative: "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department started a special counsel investigation to investigate any links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian government, especially as related to Russian interference in the 2016 elections and any related matters. Several members of the Trump campaign and administration have been convicted or indicted as a result of the investigation, including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort."

I obviously took my cues, and word choices, from Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Too long and "a special counsel investigation to investigate" does not sound right. PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wayyy too long, we don't even have that much on the others in the russia/special counsel section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, without the last sentence it's much shorter, and addressing the double "investigate" business: "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department started a special counsel investigation exploring any links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with the Russian interference in the 2016 elections."

How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost okay. I'd go with:
 * (changes in bold) -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, nice improvement. Shall we go with that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Nice work! PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Nice work! PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late to this discussion, but I'm not in agreement with part of the wording. I prefer the original wording "appointed a special counsel to investigate" rather than "began a special counsel investigation". The appointment of Mueller was not the beginning of investigations; rather, he "began" by taking over existing FBI investigations into the Russia/Trump campaign matter. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good point. While "began a special counsel investigation" is technically correct, it can leave the impression that there was no existing investigation, and that's not true. Even when Trump touted, and other's in the FBI and DOJ seemed to concur, that Trump was not himself under investigation, we know that is just BS. As the head person in the presidential campaign, any investigation of the campaign included him. So, how do with improve this?




 * MelanieN, et al, does that work? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we restore "and any related matters"? We don't want to leave the impression that those links were the only thing he was allowed to look at. Also (nit pick) I'd suggest changing "special counsel to continue existing investigations" to "special counsel to continue existing investigations". And I'd suggest waiting until more people weigh in before making any changes in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * All good suggestions, applied here:
 * Is that what you mean? Waiting for more comments is a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of minor suggestions for concision. Do you need the word "existing"? And, (this has probably been answered before) can you just say "collusion" instead of "links or coordination"? zzz (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Simplify:
 * The links were already established during Comey's tenure, so we don't really need to say "any" links. We don't need "the" before "Russian interference" and the "any" before related matters is redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you came up with the best concise wording, congrats. I would add a link to our dedicated article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, on the "links" word. — JFG talk 16:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you came up with the best concise wording, congrats. I would add a link to our dedicated article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, on the "links" word. — JFG talk 16:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)